Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind colleagues that deferred Divisions will take place today on two statutory instruments in the Members’ Library between 11.30 am and 3.30 pm. Members will cast their votes by placing the completed Division slip in one of the ballot boxes provided. I remind colleagues of the importance of social distancing during the deferred Divisions and ask them to pick up a Division slip from the Vote Office and fill it in before they reach the Library if possible. The result will be announced in the Chamber at a convenient moment after the Divisions are over.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Equal Access to Opportunity

Dehenna Davison: What steps the Government are taking to ensure equal access to opportunity.

Elizabeth Truss: We know that the average hourly wages are more than 30% higher in London than in Northern Ireland and regions such as the east midlands and the north-east. That is why we are working to level up Britain.

Dehenna Davison: We often see evidence that white working-class children have some of the worst educational outcomes—for example, in GCSE results and the numbers going on to higher education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that working-class children in communities such as Bishop Auckland who face poor outcomes deserve the full backing of the Government Equalities Office?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The attainment score at GCSE for white British children who receive free school meals is lower than the equivalent for black and Asian children who receive free school meals. That is why I have asked the Equality Hub to expand beyond protected characteristics and strengthen its focus on geography and social background to identify barriers to opportunity and success.

Female Entrepreneurs: Government Support

Kate Griffiths: What steps she is taking to support female entrepreneurs.

Paul Scully: All the Government’s business support schemes are open to eligible businesses from all regions and backgrounds, including female entrepreneurs. The start-up loans programme has provided more than 30,000 loans worth over £239 million to female entrepreneurs as of June 2020. Additionally, we are working with the private sector to deliver the eight initiatives of the Rose review. Great progress has been made over the past year, with the joint NatWest and Be the Business female entrepreneurs mentoring programme to be launched soon.

Kate Griffiths: I thank the Minister for the detailed measures he set out. More women work in sectors and industries that are hardest hit by the covid-19 crisis. Can he outline, with a particular view to childcare, the help that we can offer women with successful businesses and careers to get them through the difficult months ahead?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for her concern, especially about childcare. We have already introduced 30 hours of free childcare for eligible working parents of three and four-year-olds. We have ensured that wraparound childcare remains open, to support parents to continue to work under all three covid levels. As set out in our manifesto, the Department for Education will be investing £1 billion from 2021 to help create more high-quality wraparound and holiday childcare places, including before and after school and during the school holidays.

Covid-19: Support for Older People

Peter Grant: What steps her Department is taking to support older people during the covid-19 outbreak.

Mims Davies: This Government are determined to support older people during the pandemic, and my Department is working to support people of all ages to remain in and return to work. We have published guidance on working safely during the covid-19 pandemic and continue to work with national employer organisations on improving support for the over-50s. Our £30 billion plan for jobs provides back-to-work support for all ages, including doubling the number of work coaches, increasing sector-based work academy places and a new Department for Work and Pensions job finding support service.

Peter Grant: In my Glenrothes and Central Fife constituency, over 2,000 pensioner households are losing out on £5.4 million in pension credit payments every year because they do not know that they are entitled to them. Fife Council launched an uptake campaign in the Glenrothes area, but it was curtailed because of the covid pandemic; I have to declare an interest, as I am married to the chair of the council’s Glenrothes area committee. The Scottish Government have published an uptake strategy for the benefits under their control.  Will the Minister agree to urge her Cabinet colleagues to enshrine in law a duty for the UK Government to do the same for pension credits and other benefits that are controlled at Westminster?

Mims Davies: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that on 6 May, we launched the “Apply for Pension Credit” service, which is an online claim service that supplements the existing telephone and—[Inaudible.]

Lindsay Hoyle: We will go to the SNP spokesperson, Anne McLaughlin.

Anne McLaughlin: I think somebody else might need to answer this question! It is estimated that there is more than £2 billion out there every year that is the legal right of older people on those islands. Pension credit does not make anybody wealthy, but it can make the difference between the loneliness and misery that poverty brings and the joy of simply being able to engage in life again. Will the Minister responsible for fighting for those older people agree to take this on as an equalities issue and put resources into ensuring that people have the knowledge and support—including support in using the online service she mentioned—to access what is, after all, a legal entitlement?

Lindsay Hoyle: We are now, I hope, heading back to Minister Davies.

Mims Davies: Apologies. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In supporting our older people, pension credit is an absolute priority for this Government, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, about 1 million pensioners—close to that number—who are pension credit customers will receive a winter windfall of £140 off their fuel bills, thanks to the Government working with energy firms to cut costs. This Government are determined to do all we can to support pensioners, and the DWP cross-match these pension credit customers with the data held by pension suppliers. I am sure that we will continue to support pensioners as widely as we can through this pandemic and ongoing.[Official Report, 2 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 2MC.]

Covid-19: Women Leaving the Workforce

Ellie Reeves: What steps she is taking to support women at risk of leaving the workforce due to the economic effect of the covid-19 outbreak.

Chris Elmore: What steps she is taking to support women at risk of leaving the workforce due to the economic effect of the covid-19 outbreak.

Paul Scully: The Government have taken significant steps to protect jobs for women with the coronavirus job retention scheme supporting 4.5 million jobs done by women. We continue to support women in the labour market through our  job support and bonus schemes. We have also committed to extending redundancy protections for new mothers returning to work and to make flexible working the default.

Ellie Reeves: Working mums have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, with a recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies finding that they are more likely to quit or lose their jobs and typically perform a larger share of childcare and household duties than men. One of my constituents spent lockdown home schooling her two children as well as caring for her elderly shielding mother. Excluded from most of the financial support packages, she now faces winding up the company she set up. I have heard what the Minister had to say, but it does not go far enough. What additional urgent measures will he take to ensure that progress in female employment is not set back by decades?

Paul Scully: There are 1.8 million more women in work than in 2010, and it is important that we capture that. As I have said, on childcare responsibilities, which are so important, we have introduced 30 hours of free childcare, we have ensured that wraparound childcare remains available in each of the tiers and we will continue to invest to help create more high-quality, wraparound and holiday childcare places so that mothers are not disadvantaged.

Chris Elmore: The Women’s Budget Group last week highlighted that working-class women specifically face the biggest cuts to working hours since the beginning of the pandemic, with 43% reporting having had their hours cut to zero since April. Could the Minister set out what specific support he is putting in place to stop these women falling into poverty, because clearly it cannot be right that working-class women are so adversely affected by the pandemic?

Paul Scully: This is important, and we know that certain sectors are the worst affected. It is important that we actually do everything we can with “Hands, face, space” to make sure that our economy can start to open again and create opportunities, but we have also put in support with universal credit, the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employed income support scheme and the wider winter economy to help everybody, but especially the disadvantaged women that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Caroline Nokes: Women make up a significant proportion of those employed in the fitness, leisure and wellbeing industry. Can my hon. Friend tell me what work he is doing with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to recognise that physical, mental and financial wellbeing go hand in hand? The sector is now having to manage variable lockdowns, and there will be a knock-on impact if businesses cannot recover financially and resume their role of contributing more than £2 billion annually to the nation’s economy.

Paul Scully: We know that physical activity is absolutely crucial to the wellbeing of our nation as well as to our economy. We have been working closely with the national sports council, Sport England, to continue promoting health and fitness during lockdown. This includes the Join the Movement campaign that it has launched, which provides tips, advice and guidance to tell people how they can keep or get active in and around the home. As I have said, it is so important that we keep as many gyms open as possible, where possible, but ultimately,  this is about getting the economy up and running again. Lives are first in our priorities, but the economy and livelihoods must be absolutely up there.

Janet Daby: The Work Foundation has reported that 58% of workers in the retail sector are women and these are some of our lowest-paid workers, but due to most of them working on part-time or temporary contracts, hundreds of thousands of women working in retail will not even be eligible for redundancy pay. What plans does the Minister have in mind to mitigate the likelihood of disproportionate numbers of women being made redundant with no financial support available to them?

Paul Scully: As I say, it is so important that we get the economy up and running again, and we can do that only by people joining us and working with us on hands, face, space, to ensure that we reduce the transmission rate and save as many jobs as possible. We have launched a job support scheme, and that, plus universal credit, means that the lowest paid employees can have around 80% of their salary covered between those two schemes.

Education: Equality of Opportunity

Richard Holden: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on ensuring equality of opportunity in the education system.

Michelle Donelan: As our Prime Minister often says, talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not. This Government have made it our mission to rectify that, and equality of opportunity lies at the heart of the work by the Department for Education, including opportunity areas, access to higher education work and reforms to further education such as the flagship T-levels. We recognise that education has an unparalleled ability to create and unlock opportunities across the nation.

Richard Holden: In North West Durham, we see lower educational outcomes, especially among white working class pupils, who are getting disproportionately poor results. What measures are the Government taking to ensure better attainment at the ages of 16 and 18 and in later life, and not only to deliver greater opportunities for individuals, but to level up all our communities?

Michelle Donelan: It is vital that we raise school standards and outcomes across the education sector and that we raise and level up our country. That is why we established Opportunity North East, and tomorrow I will chair a board meeting to discuss that work. My hon. Friend is a tremendous advocate for his constituency, and I and other Education Ministers will continue to work with him to ensure that the young people of North West Durham get the chances and choices they deserve.

Equal Rights for LGBT People: International Promotion

Crispin Blunt: What steps she is taking to maintain the UK’s international promotion of equal rights for LGBT+ people.

Kemi Badenoch: The UK continues to be recognised as one of the most progressive countries globally for LGBT rights. The Government recently announced £3.2 million of new funding to help Commonwealth Governments and civil society to repeal outdated discriminatory laws against LGBT people. We work closely with the Council of Europe and the UN, in additional to co-chairing the Equal Rights Coalition, and we remain committed to delivering an ambitious international LGBT conference.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend will understand that the decision not to amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will inevitably see the United Kingdom fall significantly in the tables of those countries that are seen to be committed to the delivery of equality for LGBT+ people. Will she and her Department do something to address that, by committing to the delivery of an 18-week waiting time for gender identity clinics and development services for children, as an outcome of the review by Dr Hilary Cass?

Kemi Badenoch: We have noted my hon. Friend’s concerns about the Government’s decision, and we assure him that the UK has a strong record on LGBT rights. The wait for gender identity clinics has been very long, and the Government are looking at that issue. I will not make a specific commitment at the Dispatch Box, but I recognise the concern that has been raised. We will continue to do what we can to speed things up.

Covid-19: Risk and Outcome Disparities

Shaun Bailey: What recent discussions she has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) stakeholders on tackling the disparities in the risk and outcomes of covid-19.

Kemi Badenoch: In June, the Prime Minister asked me to lead cross-Government work on this issue, with a particular focus on ethnicity. I will update the House on the findings of my work in full tomorrow. The work involved extensive engagement by the Race Disparity Unit and me, with colleagues and external stakeholders, including academics and experts from University College London, the London School of Economics, Oxford University, medical experts from the British Medical Association and many ministerial colleagues. We will continue to redouble our efforts, and it is crucial that we make evidence-based decisions on this important work.

Shaun Bailey: One unfortunate impact of covid-19 has been the impact on attainment in our communities, particularly white working class communities where educational attainment gaps have struggled during this crisis. I represent Princes End, which has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the west midlands. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, as part of that work across government, she will look particularly at ensuring that opportunity gaps as a result of covid-19 are not widened?

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of children of all backgrounds being in school and their educational attainment and wellbeing more broadly. The Government have been clear that  limiting attendance at schools should be a last resort. We are providing laptops for the most disadvantaged pupils and 4G routers for families who do not already have mobile or broadband, for example. More broadly, on disparities in attainment, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is looking at outcomes for the whole population. That means ethnic minorities and white British people as well. The commission will set out a new positive agenda for change and look at the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.

Science, Technology and Emerging Industries: Girls and Young Women

Katherine Fletcher: What steps she is taking to encourage girls and young women to lead in science, technology and emerging industries.

Elizabeth Truss: We are making good progress in getting more girls and women into science, technology, engineering and maths, with a 31% increase in girls studying STEM subjects since 2010 and 1 million women now working in core STEM occupations.

Katherine Fletcher: Professor Sarah Gilbert in vaccine research; Kate Bingham in vaccine operations; Baroness Harding in testing; Dr Jenny Harries in medicine—all fantastic examples of highly qualified professionals leading the UK’s response to this once-in-a-century pandemic, and they all happen to be women in STEM. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they are setting a wonderful example for future generations of girls and boys in South Ribble, Lancashire and beyond?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are a huge asset to our country, but having more women in STEM is also helping to close the wage gap and helping our economy to recover post covid. Around 35% of the wage gap can be overcome if we get more women working in high-paid occupations and sectors such as engineering and technology.

International Trade: Business Opportunities for Women

Heather Wheeler: What steps she is taking to increase business opportunities for women through international trade.

Elizabeth Truss: As much as £250 billion could be added to the UK economy if women started and scaled businesses at the same rate as men. I am determined that trade should play its part in opening up greater opportunities for women, both in the UK and across the world.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can she tell me what the UK will do to build on our close ties with Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam to expand trading opportunities, especially for women, particularly given Vietnam’s membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership?

Elizabeth Truss: First, we have appointed a splendid trade envoy for those three countries, who is going to do a brilliant job promoting opportunities for women and  everyone through free trade agreements. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: CPTPP contains important provisions to open up trade for women, and of course Vietnam is a key part of that agreement.

Abortion Clinics: Protection from Intimidation or Protest

Rupa Huq: What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on protecting women attending abortion clinics from intimidation or protest.

Victoria Atkins: The Government are clear that it is unacceptable that women seeking or staff providing healthcare advice should feel intimidated or harassed. The Home Office has been keeping this important matter under review. We are now considering again whether more should be done to protect those accessing or providing abortion services, and we have reached out to service providers and the police to understand their experiences of these protests, but the impact on women is of course at the centre of our considerations.

Rupa Huq: That is a very encouraging reply. Right now, up and down the country, women are being intimidated and police are having their time taken up by 40 Days for Life, an anti-choice group that is running a 40-day protest outside clinics. France, Australia and Canada have legislation on this. I am encouraged by what the Minister says. Will she please follow suit and take heed of the Demonstrations (Abortion Clinics) Bill, which I introduced in June? There is overwhelming support in the House for us to do the same here.

Victoria Atkins: I have the pleasure of meeting the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) later today to discuss this topic. The hon. Lady will know the meticulous approach that we have applied to this important issue. There is a balance to be struck with the right to express and to have freedom of speech, but clearly the impact on women and staff working in these centres is really important. I am pleased that public spaces protection orders are working in her area and two others—Manchester, I understand, has just received an order, or is implementing an order, as well. We very much have to balance those matters in mind, but I look forward to continuing this discussion in only a few hours’ time.

Topical Questions

Flick Drummond: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: Alongside sex, race and sexual orientation, geography and social economic status can affect opportunity. I want to widen the focus of our understanding of equality to include outcomes for white working-class children, so we can ensure we are levelling up our country. I have therefore asked the Equality Hub to consider the importance of geography and background alongside factors such as sex, ethnicity and disability. That will make sure we truly level up Britain.

Flick Drummond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Equality and Human Rights Commission should be focused on its responsibility to enforce equality and human rights law?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted that we have been able to put forward Baroness Kishwer Falkner as our preferred candidate to chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I know she is committed to making sure the commission’s focus is on enforcing our important equality laws.

Marsha de Cordova: The Equality Act 2010 sets out that the Government must seek to advance equality of opportunity in relation to its functions, yet throughout the pandemic Ministers have repeatedly failed to do so. It is vital that the Government take proactive steps to prevent the disproportionate impact of covid on disabled, black, Asian and minority ethnic people. Failure to do so is neglect. It is discriminatory, and it is unlawful. What evidence does the Minister have that her Government are fulfilling their public sector equality duty as set out in the Equality Act?

Kemi Badenoch: It is completely false to say that the Government have not acted and to deliberately ignore the significant measures we have put in place to reduce the spread of the virus in all communities across the United Kingdom, which we have repeatedly stated in this House. As I mentioned earlier, I will be making a full oral statement tomorrow, but it is known that we have taken many key measures to ensure that NHS frontline staff—in particular, those from ethnic minority backgrounds—are best protected and to ensure we fully understand the links between the virus and ethnicity.

Marsha de Cordova: Two and a half thousand deaths could have been avoided during the first wave of the pandemic had people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities been adequately protected. Last month, I wrote to the Minister asking what steps her Government had taken to address the disproportionate impact of covid, but I have yet to receive a reply and we are now in a second wave. The Minister says she will be giving a statement tomorrow, but I ask her as it is oral questions today. She still has not given an update on progress in implementing the recommendations of the Public Health England report. It has been over four months, so will she give us an update on the seven recommendations and when they will be fully implemented?

Kemi Badenoch: The shadow Minister has written many letters to me over the past four months, and I have replied to them. It is simply untrue to say that she has not received a reply. She knows the work we are doing is progressing the recommendations throughout government. The oral statement tomorrow will give ample time for me to fully address and explain all the work the Government have been doing and what the evidence has shown us. I encourage her to attend the oral statement tomorrow, because there is very much that she could learn on this topic.

Christine Jardine: Will the Minister tell us what assessment has been made, and what steps are being taken, of the impact the increasing numbers of covid-19 cases and the pandemic are having on the LGBTQ+ community?

Kemi Badenoch: We have been looking at the disproportionate impact the virus has had on very many groups. That is not a group where we have seen a disproportionate impact in terms of the effects of the virus. What has impacted that community is their inability, like the rest of the population, to access healthcare services. We hope that will be addressed through how we are managing local lockdowns and being able to keep pressure off the NHS.

Selaine Saxby: Will my hon. Friend detail what steps her Department is taking to ensure that girls can access period products during the pandemic, especially when only 41% of schools are taking advantage of the Government’s offer of free period products? In Environmenstrual Week, does she agree that, wherever possible, those products should be free of plastic?

Kemi Badenoch: The Government are taking a range of actions to ensure that everyone can access affordable period products. We are providing fully funded access to free period products in schools and colleges across England. The scheme remained in operation during partial school closures, and we expect uptake to have significantly increased as schools have fully opened. The scheme provides a wide range of products, including environmentally friendly tampons and pads, alongside reusable products such as menstrual cups and reusable pads.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Catherine West: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 October.

Boris Johnson: I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I am sure Members from across the House will want to join me in wishing her a speedy recovery.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Catherine West: I associate myself with those kind remarks on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).
My constituents are reeling from the 9% contraction of the economy since March this year. Unemployment has sky-rocketed and joblessness in Haringey is the highest in the capital. Unfortunately, we are at the same time facing the idea that there could be a congestion tax forced on an extra 4 million Londoners by this Government. These Londoners are already facing the double whammy of covid and financial ruin. Will the Prime Minister please immediately stop the imposition of this dreadful plan? I look forward to his answer.

Boris Johnson: I must respectfully inform the hon. Lady that the current Mayor of London had effectively bankrupted TfL before coronavirus had even  hit and left a massive black hole in its finances. Any need to make up that deficit is entirely down to him. It is entirely his responsibility. Any expansion of the congestion charge or any other measure taken to improve the finances of TfL are entirely the responsibility of the bankrupt current Labour Mayor of London.

Rob Butler: People the length and breadth of the country have made many sacrifices over the last few months to try to suppress covid-19, but infection rates are increasing fast and Buckinghamshire may soon find itself in tier 2. Can my right hon. Friend tell the people of my Aylesbury constituency how long we would be expected to stay there, what additional help there would be for local businesses, and, crucially, what the route out would be?

Boris Johnson: I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend by telling him that the incidence in the Vale of Aylesbury is in fact less than half the England average. The way forward for constituents in the Vale of Aylesbury and everywhere else is for everyone to keep following the guidance, observing the new restrictions and, obviously, washing hands, wearing a face covering in enclosed spaces and keeping a sensible distance.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).
Prime Minister, how does an area which goes into tier 3 restrictions get out of those restrictions?

Boris Johnson: The simplest and most effective way for areas to get out of those restrictions is, of course, to get the R down to 1 or below, and I am very pleased to say that some areas are already having a considerable effect with the measures that they are taking.

Keir Starmer: Can I press the Prime Minister on that answer? If the infection rate, R, in a tier 3 area has not come below 1, will it be possible in any circumstances for that area to come out of tier 3—if the R has not come below 1?

Boris Johnson: Obviously, the R is one of the measures that we look at. We take a decision based on a number of things including the R—also, of course, rates of infection, rates of admission to hospital and other data. But the most important thing is for areas that do go into tier 3—and I am very grateful to local leadership in the areas that have gone into tier 3, because it is the right thing for them to do, the right thing for their constituents, the right thing to save lives —when they are able to make progress, then, of course, they will come out of tier 3. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well, the measures that are put in place are reviewed every 28 days.

Keir Starmer: I am now confused by the Prime Minister’s answer. If it is not the R rate under 1, what is it? Millions of people want to know the answer to that question. Millions of them are in tier 3 and millions more are likely to go into tier 3. They really need to know. On Friday, the chief scientific officer said that tier 3 on its own certainly is not enough to get the R rate  below 1. On the same day, the Prime Minister himself said that there was only a chance of getting infection rates down.
That goes to the heart of the issue in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. The widespread fear is that tier 3 is the worst of all worlds: it brings significant economic harm without getting the virus sufficiently under control to exit tier 3. So instead of being a solution, tier 3 is a gateway to weeks and weeks, or more likely months and months, of agony from which there is no likely exit. Can the Prime Minister not see the problem if there is not a clear exit?

Boris Johnson: I am sorry, but I have made it absolutely clear that a part of the country going into tier 3 is in there only for 28 days; we will review it after 28 days. Areas that have gone into tier 3 are, I believe, already making progress, and areas where there are restrictions in place are also showing signs of progress. We are pursuing a local—a regional—approach, which is the sensible approach for this country. That is what the epidemiology supports. It is what the deputy chief medical officer supported last night.
Again, I want to thank local leadership in Merseyside, in Lancashire, actually in London, in the west midlands and elsewhere for what they are doing. It is a bit incoherent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to attack local lockdowns when he wants to plunge the whole country back into a damaging lockdown for weeks on end, and he has no clue about how he would propose to get the country out of that—does he?

Keir Starmer: I appreciate that there will be a review every 28 days, but if the R rate has not come below 1, then the infection rate is still going up, the numbers are going up, the admissions are going up, the numbers in hospital are going up and the deaths are going up. Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that he would take a tier 3 area out of tier 3 with the R above 1? I do not think so.
Let me spell out what that means. On Friday, thousands of people in Greater Manchester—taxi drivers, pub and hospitality workers, people working in betting shops, the self-employed and freelancers—will either be out of work or face significant pay cuts. That is the reality on Friday in Greater Manchester. But their rent and their mortgage will not be lower; their food and their heating bills will not be lower—and that could last for months.
Why can the Prime Minister and the Chancellor not understand that? They should stop bargaining with people’s lives, stop dividing communities and provide the support that is needed in Manchester.

Boris Johnson: I am very proud that this Government have already given Greater Manchester £1.1 billion in support for business, £200 million in extra un-ring-fenced funding, £50 million to tackle infections in care homes, £20 million for Test and Trace, and another £22 million for the local response that we announced yesterday. Yesterday, the Mayor of Greater Manchester was offered a further £60 million, which he turned down, having had no encouragement to support it, I may say, from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I can tell the House today that that cash will be distributed to the boroughs of Greater Manchester. I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the House,  including my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Bolton West (Chris Green), for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), for Bury North (James Daly), for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), for Leigh (James Grundy), for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for the support that they have given in this matter.

Keir Starmer: This is a Prime Minister who can pay £7,000 a day for consultants on Track and Trace, which is not working; who can find £43 million for a garden bridge that was never built; but who cannot find £5 million for the people of Greater Manchester. I really think the Prime Minister has crossed a Rubicon here, not just in the miserly way that he has treated Greater Manchester, but in the grubby take-it-or-leave-it way that these local deals are being done. It is corrosive to public trust to pit region against region, mayor against mayor, council against council and ask them to trade away their businesses and jobs. We need a one nation approach to replace these endless local battles with clear national criteria and proper support for jobs. Labour’s motion this afternoon would do that. Why will the Prime Minister not support it?

Boris Johnson: I am proud of the one nation Conservative support that we have given to the entire country: £200 billion in support for jobs and livelihoods across the whole of the country already, and a further £9.9 billion now for the job support scheme. It is this Government who have cut VAT for business and deferred business rates. There is no other country in Europe where so much support and so much help has been given to the population to get through this crisis, and we will continue to do that. It is the height of absurdity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands up and attacks the economic consequences of the measures we are obliged to take across some parts of the country when he wants to turn the lights out with a full national lockdown, taking kids—[Interruption.] That was his policy last week anyway, wasn’t it? Perhaps he could confirm that that is still his policy. Is that what he wants to do?

Keir Starmer: At his press conference yesterday, the Prime Minister produced heat maps across the country showing that the infection rate was up in all ages and across all regions, and particularly showing regions that have been in the equivalent of tier 2 restrictions for weeks, if not months, moving into tier 3. If they are moving into tier 3, tier 2 has not worked, because if tier 2 had worked, they should be going into tier 1.
So tier 2 goes to tier 3, and tier 3 has no end, because there is no prospect or confidence in the R rate coming below 1—and I do not believe that a tier 3 region will come out of those restrictions unless R is below 1 and while the numbers are still going up. So we now have a stark choice.
By the way, Prime Minister, Cornwall is the only place—possibly with the Isle of Wight—where the infection rate today is less than it was in Greater Manchester when it went into local restrictions, so this idea that some areas are immune is wrong.
So there is a stark choice: carry on with the Prime Minister’s approach, which will lead to weeks and weeks and months and months of prolonged agony in everyone’s  constituencies for millions of people in tiers 2 and 3, with no exit; or put in place a two to three week time- limited circuit break to break the cycle and bring the virus back under control.
Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—in part—have chosen that path. With half term starting this Friday, this may be the last opportunity for the Prime Minister to put in place an effective circuit break. The Prime Minister was too slow in the first phase of the pandemic; he is being too slow again. We cannot repeat this mistake. Will he act in the public interest and take the opportunity to put in place a circuit break this Friday?

Boris Johnson: We will do whatever it takes to get this country through the crisis, with or without the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have explained why I do not believe that his policy is the right one for the country, because it would involve closing schools and shuttering businesses, with all the psychological and emotional damage that a lockdown of that kind brings. He cannot say how many circuit breakers he thinks would be necessary. He cannot say how long they would go on. He cannot say how much damage they would do to the UK economy and to people’s mental health.
We, on the other hand, want to go on with our common-sensical approach, which is a local and regional approach, keeping kids in school and keeping our economy moving, because that is the way to get the whole of our country through this crisis together so that all the regions of the country, particularly those regions that are now, alas, under tier 3 restrictions, bounce back strongly together.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us head up to Cheshire, and Edward Timpson.

Edward Timpson: After recent positive progress, covid has disproportionately and adversely affected participation levels in female sport and physical activity. To help to reverse that, will my right hon. Friend lend his support to the development of the first ever women’s and girls’ football national centre of excellence in Winsford in my constituency—a £70 million project that he has previously expressed enthusiasm for—and help to build female grass-roots sport back better?

Boris Johnson: This is a very exciting project, and I welcome Cheshire FA’s commitment to providing a new world-class facility for women’s and girls’ football. I look forward to the proposed opening of the centre in Winsford.

Ian Blackford: My thoughts are very much with the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I hope she makes a speedy recovery.
Next week, just as the pandemic is worsening, the Tory Government will scrap the furlough scheme in a move that will cause a wave of mass redundancies across the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, behind closed doors the Prime Minister is complaining that he cannot get by on his £150,000 salary. If the Prime Minister is finding life such a struggle, how on earth does he expect many workers to get by on just £5.84 an hour when the Tory cuts to furlough sink in?

Boris Johnson: Actually, I am proud of what we have done to support people on low incomes throughout this period and, indeed, before. It was this Government who raised the living wage by record amounts, and we have just increased universal credit by around £1,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point about furlough; as he knows, if universal credit is combined with the job support scheme that we have just announced, workers will be getting 80% of their existing salary. We will get this country through this crisis and we will continue to support people of low incomes throughout the period.

Ian Blackford: I am afraid the Prime Minister just does not get it. Yesterday, we saw his total disregard for the people of Greater Manchester—a Tory attitude that people in Scotland are all too familiar with. Millions of families are struggling to get by and this Tory Government want to cut their incomes in the middle of a pandemic. It is clear that the Prime Minister has made a deliberate decision to let unemployment soar, just like Thatcher did in the 1980s. Time is running out. With one week left, will the Prime Minister finally U-turn on his cuts to the furlough scheme and invest in our communities? Or will he leave millions of people on the scrap heap?

Boris Johnson: I really must reject what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, because it bears no relation to the facts or the reality of what the Government are doing to support people throughout the country. It is not just the £200 billion investment in jobs and livelihoods; we are also engaged in and will continue to deliver a colossal investment in education, health, housing and infrastructure that will deliver jobs and growth throughout this United Kingdom for a generation.

Andrea Jenkyns: I congratulate the Prime Minister and his negotiating team on their strong stance in the negotiations with the EU. Does he agree that the EU’s position on fishing and the European Court of Justice demonstrates that it is not treating us as an independent state, that it is not acting in good faith to deliver a free trade agreement and that, in international law, the UK is therefore entitled to leave the withdrawal agreement and make its own arrangements regarding the UK’s internal market?

Boris Johnson: Whatever the effect of the withdrawal agreement, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the UK’s internal market, which I think everybody on both sides of the House values, is protected and upheld and by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is currently going through the other place. It also, of course, protects the Good Friday agreement.

Edward Davey: Mikey is severely disabled. He turned 18 last month, so he is one of the first to see his child trust fund mature, but Mikey’s disabilities mean that he cannot manage his own finances, so he cannot access the savings. Government rules on child trust funds mean that his parents cannot access them either without paying expensive legal fees. This is Mikey’s own money. He wants to use it to buy a specially adapted tricycle. Will the Prime Minister look at the proposals that Mikey’s father has shown me to end this injustice for disabled young people and let Mikey buy this trike?

Boris Johnson: Of course I will do whatever I can to help in the particular case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. I do not know whether the tricycle he mentions is eligible for a number of the schemes that I can immediately call to mind, but if he cares to write to me, I will of course answer immediately.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now head up to Harrow for Bob Blackman to land his question.

Bob Blackman: Thank you, ground control.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be well aware of the negotiations going on between the Department for Transport and the current Mayor of London on a further bail-out for Transport for London. The current Mayor is demanding an eye-watering £5.65 billion to keep TfL running for the next 18 months, yet he refuses to accept any economies because that would offend his union paymasters. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have not required the current Mayor of London to expand the congestion charge to the north and south circular roads?

Boris Johnson: What I can certainly confirm, as I said in my answer to the first question, is that the black hole in TfL’s finances of TfL, the bankruptcy of TfL, which, by the way, was left in robust financial health by the previous Mayor—it certainly was—is entirely the fault of the current Labour Mayor of London, with his grossly irresponsible demagogic fare policies, which, I may say, were never pursued by the previous Mayor of London, and the fault lies entirely with him. I trust that my hon. Friend will make that clear.

Rupa Huq: Financial support packages, tackling homelessness, rail nationalisation and honouring Marcus Rashford—there is plenty that this Government have done on covid that I applaud, but with winter set to bite and no end to the virus in sight, may I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the arbitrary end to many of his schemes, which were set months ago when we knew so little? Three million self-employed people were completely left out of all of these measures, a number of whom are now set to face destitution when the minimum income floor ends next month. Furthermore, school dinners for 3,272 kids in his own seat and 2,016 in mine are in the balance. Can he start by voting with us tonight and make sure that that gong does not mean nothing?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Boris Johnson: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Will the Prime Minister sit down? We must have short questions. I want to get through the list, so we must help each other.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is quite right to call attention to the difficulties facing many families right now because of the crisis that we have been in. The most important thing—and I hope that this is common ground—is to keep kids in school if we possibly can. That would be vitiated by the series of lockdowns that are being proposed. I do not want to go down that route. What I want to do is to ensure that we continue to support families throughout the crisis so that they have the cash available to feed their kids as they need to do.

Kettering General Hospital

Philip Hollobone: If he will hold discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on involving the infrastructure delivery taskforce in the rebuilding of Kettering General Hospital.

Boris Johnson: I am delighted that Kettering General Hospital is part of the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. I can tell my hon. Friend that the infrastructure delivery taskforce is already involved in delivering the health infrastructure programme, which includes Kettering General Hospital.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Prime Minister for visiting the night shift at Kettering General Hospital in February and seeing for himself at first hand the wonderful work being done by local medics and staff. The hospital could expedite at speed ambitious plans for its rebuild, but only if the time taken for regulatory clearances at NHS Improvement is dramatically shortened. Will the Prime Minister cut NHS red tape, so that local people can have the improvements that we need at our local hospital as quickly as possible?

Boris Johnson: Indeed. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that clinical modelling work is complete and the site development is now under way as we speak.

Engagements

Daisy Cooper: On 16 June, the Prime Minister agreed to provide free school meal vouchers to hungry children over the summer holidays after claiming just 24 hours beforehand that he was completely unaware of the campaign that was calling for it. Last week, the Liberal Democrat Education Minister for Wales, Kirsty Williams, guaranteed that free school meal provision during school holidays would continue until at least Easter 2021, and yesterday the Scottish Government committed to do the same. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he is indeed aware of these announcements, and, if so, when does he plan to do the right thing?

Boris Johnson: Governments of all stripes have supplied free school meals since 1906, and I am proud that it was this Conservative Government who extended universal free school meals to five, six and seven-year-olds. The Labour party was in power for 30 of the past 100 years and never did anything like that. We support kids of low incomes in school, and we will continue to do so, but the most important thing is to keep them in school and not to tear off into another national lockdown, taking them out of school. We will continue to use the benefits system and all the systems of income support to support young people and children throughout the holidays as well.

Gary Streeter: One lesson that we have all learnt in the past nine months is that the internet is even more important to our lives than we imagined. Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm today that, despite covid and all the other challenges with which he is grappling, we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to roll out full fibre superfast broadband across the United Kingdom and ensure that we are global leaders in digital connectivity?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does to lobby for that. Our local delivery partner in Devon and Somerset has provided connectivity of the kind that he describes to 300,000 premises across those two counties. We are going to be a world leader in connectivity as we build back better.

Janet Daby: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government are seeking to force the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to remove free travel for under-18s and for holders of the 60-plus travel card in return for further financial support for TfL to keep the tubes and buses running? How can this be right when many people in London, including in my constituency, already have months of genuine hardship ahead of them?

Boris Johnson: It was the Labour Mayor of London who bankrupted TfL’s finances, and any changes that he brings in are entirely his responsibility. I suggest that the hon. Member holds him to account.

Jo Gideon: I know that the Prime Minister is committed to doubling down on levelling up. Will he join me for a virtual tour of Stoke-on-Trent Central and a roundtable with key partners focused on delivering for the left behind, not least to ensure that the transforming cities fund investment will revolutionise public transport in the city?

Boris Johnson: That is an easy commitment for me to make, and I am delighted to do so. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are investing nearly £20 million through our city deal in pioneering a new programme of sustainable low-carbon and low-cost heat energy to Stoke-on-Trent.

Sarah Owen: Three weeks ago the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box praising Luton as the only place to have come out of local restrictions, but praise does not pay the bills. Luton’s proud industries of manufacturing, aviation and events cannot get by on soundbites and figures that bear no relation to what is really happening to jobs and businesses. He knows that entire industries are at stake, so is his inaction indifference or incompetence? Will he support businesses and areas that need it throughout this crisis?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. I thank the people of Luton for their hard and heroic work, as I thank people across the country for what they are doing. I want to support businesses in Luton, which is why we want to continue with the sensible, balanced, regional and local approach that we are taking. I hope that the hon. Member agrees with me that it would make no sense at all for hard-pressed businesses in Luton to have their lights turned off and their doors shuttered in a series of multiple lockdowns of the kind recommended by the Labour party.

Robin Millar: The people of Aberconwy in north Wales are learning to live with covid-19, but we are frustrated by national Welsh Government policy that seeks to place restrictions on us that are the same in the village of Cwm Penmachno as they are in the capital, Cardiff. Last week, my right hon.  Friend agreed that a shared responsibility is the way to tackle this pandemic. Does he see the future of this situation as a series of rolling national lockdowns, or can businesses and residents hope that they will be given more trust to look after their own health and those they care for?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend puts the distinction clearly and sharply, which is that we are following the common-sensical and balanced approach. Where local leaders step up to the plate—I am delighted that South Yorkshire came on board this morning; I had a great conversation with Dan Jarvis last night—and where local leadership is shown, we can really make huge progress in getting the R down. That is the right approach for the country.

George Howarth: May I return to the subject of free school meals? There are 7,108 children in Knowsley who are reliant on free school meals, which are vital to ensure that they are properly fed. Whether to extend provision to Easter is both a moral and political choice. Will the Prime Minister make the right choice and agree to extend free school meals to Easter?

Boris Johnson: Of course we have free school meals throughout term time—that is entirely right. We want to make sure that we continue to support people on low incomes throughout the crisis, and that is what we are going to do.

Stephen Metcalfe: As my right hon. Friend will know, part of my constituency has now been placed under tier 2 restrictions. Can he therefore reassure everyone that if they stick to the rules, observe the “hands, face, space” message, and self-isolate when required, accompanied by suitable enforcement for those who blatantly flout the law, we will come out of these restrictions all the sooner?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. That is exactly what we need to do. The areas that go into high levels of concern are reviewed every 14 days, and the restrictions, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), are reviewed every 28 days. The way to get through this is exactly as my hon. Friend says: to follow the guidance, particularly the “hands, face, space” basics.

Sarah Olney: The people of Barnes in my constituency have been cut off from public transport routes for some months now by the closure of Hammersmith bridge. Can the Prime Minister confirm reports that the Government are now planning to charge Barnes residents £15 a day to own a car, and charge them extra council tax, to pay for facilities that they cannot use, despite the fact that Transport for London reserves were increasing before the virus hit?

Boris Johnson: I can confirm that Hammersmith bridge has been closed thanks entirely to the incompetence of the current Labour Mayor of London, and that Shaun Bailey, the Conservative candidate, is going to reopen it, which is the best thing possible.

Crispin Blunt: As my right hon. Friend leads the country through Brexit and delivers global Britain, will he ensure that the values and policies of his Government to which he first gives consideration are those that will unite and bring our country together, and make all those who voted remain for what they thought were the internationalist values of the European Union proud again of their country in bringing those values to global Britain?

Boris Johnson: Indeed. That is why we are going to use the G7 presidency and the COP26 summit to champion our values across the world, particularly the one that my hon. Friend mentions—female education, which is the single policy that can really transform outcomes across the planet. Our global objective is to help 40 million girls across the world to get a decent education.

Lilian Greenwood: The Prime Minister’s Government lost control of the virus, making extra restrictions inevitable, but with no certainty, no communication and no new financial support, he is killing Nottingham businesses. Castle Rock Brewery is a Nottingham success story, but now it is on the verge of breakdown, with two pubs closed permanently, jobs gone, and worried staff facing the prospect of being laid off with no pay. Countless other bars, restaurants and pubs tell the same story. Will he stop punishing successful Nottingham businesses for his failure and give them the help they desperately need?

Boris Johnson: Of course I sympathise deeply with businesses that face difficulties because of the pandemic, although I remind the hon. Lady that the infection rate in her constituency is now running at 815 per 100,000, and we must get that down. I thank the people of Nottingham for what they are doing to get it down. We will of course continue to provide the full panoply of support that we have offered, and more, throughout this crisis.

Julian Sturdy: Following the introduction of tier 2 restrictions in York, can the Prime Minister be more open in communicating the evidence base for York going into tier 2, outline a road map for the city’s return to tier 1, and urgently consider the creation of specific support for York’s hospitality industry, which is suffering losses from the limbo that tier 2 is creating?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I can tell my hon. Friend that the infection rate in York, alas, is now running at 279 per 100,000, and we must get it down. But we can get it down; we can get it down through the package of measures that we have described. You can see, in areas where people are complying with the guidance, that it is having an effect, because if it were not for the efforts and energies of the British people, the R would be running at 3 or more; it is now between 1.2 and 1.5. It will not take much—compliance in those areas that are hit at the moment—to get that R back down below 1. That is what we are aiming for, and that is the way to get businesses across the country, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in my hon. Friend’s constituency, back on their feet as fast as possible. It would not be sensible, in  my view, to plunge them all back into a sustained series of national lockdowns, particularly in areas where the virus is low.

Helen Hayes: The Chancellor has decided that people who are unable to work because of coronavirus restrictions should be paid as little as two thirds of the national minimum wage. At the same time, the Government are paying £7,000 a day for consultants to work on the failed Serco track and trace programme. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how on earth he thinks that is justifiable, and is this what he means by “levelling up”?

Boris Johnson: The NHS track and trace is now testing more people than any other country in Europe; it has tested, I think, 26 million people so far—or conducted 26 million tests. I am also proud, on the hon. Lady’s other point, that we have been able to support people across the country in the way that we have. She is   not correct in what she says about the combined impact of the job support scheme and universal credit, because they work in tandem, and that lifts people’s incomes to 80%, and in some cases more than 90%, of their current incomes. That is the support that we are giving at the moment, but the best thing is to get our country through this crisis, without going back into the social, the psychological, the emotional and the economic disaster—and “disaster” was the word that the Labour party used only a week or so ago—the disaster of a series of national lockdowns.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19 Restrictions: South Yorkshire

Lindsay Hoyle: Exceptionally, I have agreed to the Minister for Health making a statement with a shorter notice period. Members should understand that it is better to have it than not to have it, so please accept my apologies for the late notice.

Edward Argar: With permission, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus, further to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care last night.
This virus remains a serious threat, and over a million people have tested positive for coronavirus in Europe over the past week. Here in the UK, we recorded 21,331 positive cases yesterday—one of the highest recorded daily figures. Average daily hospital admissions in the UK have doubled in the past 14 days, and yesterday we recorded the highest number of daily deaths, 241, since early June.
We must keep working hard, together, to keep this virus under control. We have been vigilant in monitoring the data and putting in place targeted local measures so that we can bear down hard on the virus wherever we see it emerging. We have seen how local action can help flatten the curve, for example in Leicester and Bolton. This targeted local approach, supported by our local covid alert level system, means we can have different rules in places like Cornwall, where transmission is low, from those in places where transmission is high and rising.
I would like to update the House specifically on the discussions we have been having with local leaders in South Yorkshire. The situation in South Yorkshire remains serious. There have been more cases in South Yorkshire so far in October—over 12,000—than in July, August and September combined. The number of patients with covid-19 in intensive care beds has reached over half the number seen at the height of the pandemic earlier this year, and the latest data suggests that the numbers of patients on mechanical ventilation will soon be comparable to the first peak in March. We need to act now to prevent the epidemic in South Yorkshire from continuing to grow.
I am pleased to inform the House that, following discussions this week, the Government have reached an agreement with South Yorkshire on a package of measures to drive down transmission. That means that South Yorkshire—so the city of Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster—will be moving to the local covid alert level “very high”, taking effect at one minute past midnight on Saturday morning. That includes the baseline measures to the very high alert level which were agreed by the House earlier this month.
As well as this, and as agreed with local leaders, unfortunately, casinos, betting shops, adult gaming centres and soft play centres will also have to close, and while gyms will remain open classes will not be allowed. On that point, the Liverpool city region and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) have also requested to bring their region into line with those measures. So gyms will be open and soft play centres will close in the Liverpool city region.
We know that some of the measures I have announced today are challenging and will have a real impact on people and businesses in South Yorkshire, so we will be putting in place substantial support. That includes the job support scheme, which ensures those affected by business closures are still paid. Once topped up with universal credit, those on low incomes will receive at least 80% of their normal income. The agreement also includes additional funding of £11.2 million for the local area for local enforcement and contract tracing activity. As well as that, we are putting in place extra funding so that local authorities in South Yorkshire can continue to support businesses through this period.
From the Dispatch Box, I would like to thank all the local leaders in South Yorkshire for the collegiate and constructive way in which they have approached the negotiations. I would like to thank all hon. Members representing constituencies in the region as well. We have worked across party lines to reach an agreement that will protect public health and the NHS in South Yorkshire, while also supporting those who need it most. I know those local measures will be hard and entail further sacrifice, but through bearing down hard on the virus, wherever and whenever we see it emerge, we can help to slow the spread of this virus and protect our loved ones and our local communities. The agreement will help us to protect lives and livelihoods in South Yorkshire and I commend the statement to the House.

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Minister of State for advance sight of his statement. Today, we have another great swathe of the north put into lockdown. Sheffield went into tier 2 restrictions last Wednesday, so did Ministers make the wrong judgment a week ago or has new evidence come to light that was not apparent last Wednesday? How many other areas in tier 2 today are facing the same fate as Sheffield, such as those areas in tier 2 that neighbour South Yorkshire, such as North East Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire?
The Secretary of State could not answer yesterday the question of how long Greater Manchester will be in lockdown, or what the criteria will be for leaving lockdown, so can the Minister of State today tell us how long South Yorkshire will be in lockdown? Does the nationwide R number need to fall below 1, as the Prime Minister suggested last week, or just the regional R number? Or, if an area such as Doncaster gets the R below 1, will it be able to leave lockdown?
The Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box earlier talked about hospital admissions, so could the Minister tell us what level hospital admissions need to come down to for an area to exit lockdown?
As I said yesterday, my dad worked in casinos in Salford and my mum worked in bars. I know people will want to do the right thing and will understand that further measures are necessary to contain the spread of the virus, but families should not face financial ruin. The Minister wants congratulations for the package he has allocated to South Yorkshire, but why is contact tracing funding subject to the negotiations and deals? The virus is out of control because of the failures of the £12 billion test and trace system. If local areas had been given the resources months ago to put in place effective contact tracing, we would not be in this situation now. Those failures on contact tracing are having a direct impact on people’s lives.
This afternoon, families across South Yorkshire who work in hospitality—whether in Doncaster, Sheffield, Penistone, Rother Valley or Don Valley—will be asking why, if it was fair to pay 80% of wages in March, they should now be expected to get by on just two thirds of their wages in the run-up to Christmas. This matters to families everywhere, because we know that further restrictions will be needed. Indeed, according to sources briefing Times Radio, plans are being developed for a three-week lockdown more widely next month. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that his officials are now working on plans for a three-week national lockdown next month.
The Communities Secretary said this morning that there was now a national formula for areas under local lockdown, but Ministers say they want a targeted local approach because circumstances vary. Yet when an area such as Greater Manchester, which has had restrictions since July, says, “Our circumstances are different,” the Prime Minister says, “Tough. Hard luck. You can’t be treated any differently,” and vindictively refuses Greater Manchester just £5 million extra to get a deal over the line. This is playing politics with people’s jobs and people’s livelihoods. We cannot defeat this virus on the cheap, nor should it be broken on the backs of the lowest paid. Public health restrictions must go hand in hand with economic support, because as night follows day, falls in employment lead to rises in chronic illness. The Chancellor must pay out to help out, and deliver a fair deal to support jobs and livelihoods under lockdown.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour up in Leicestershire. He was, as usual, typically reasonable and measured, until almost the last moment, when I am afraid the only person playing politics was him.
To address the hon. Gentleman’s points, we are taking these steps now, at the right time, as the infection rate has continued to go up. In respect of other tier 2 areas or neighbouring tier 2 areas, it is only this announcement that we are planning to make at this point. It is the only move that has been announced and that is currently being considered.
The hon. Gentleman asked about criteria, essentially— a number of his questions were, “How long for?” and, “How will it be judged?”, which are fair questions. Areas will remain in tier 3 or tier 2 for as long as necessary to protect the health of the local people and the NHS in that region. He asked about the sort of things that will be relevant to when an area enters and comes out. These include infection rates per 100,000, the impact on the NHS in terms of hospital capacity and how full hospitals are, and hospitalisation rates, as well as relying on local knowledge and listening to local public health officials, as he would expect us to.
The hon. Gentleman touched on contact tracing and how that is working. What we have in this country is a blended system, which brings together the scale of a national approach with the local knowledge provided by local public health teams. He has seen in his own city of Leicester how effective that can be and how both parts are absolutely vital.
The hon. Gentleman finished by talking, I think reasonably, about the need for economic support for those affected by this. As I set out in the statement, the job support scheme, coupled with universal credit for  those eligible, will ensure that people receive at least 80% of their wages. On his broader point about the big picture of economic support, I would remind him that this Government and the Chancellor have provided an unprecedented package of economic support over recent months to businesses and individuals. The Government are very clear in our commitment to protect the health of this nation and the economic health of this nation.

Nicholas Fletcher: I thank my hon. Friend for making this statement. I have had many productive meetings with him and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care during the pandemic, and I know how hard such decisions are to make. While I understand the necessity for South Yorkshire to go into tier 3 to reduce the infection rate, businesses and employees are worried about the future. Can he confirm to the people of Doncaster that if they play their part, they will be able to move down to tier 2 independently of Sheffield city region?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is a consistently strong voice for his constituents in this House and in conversations with Ministers. I am clear, as are the Government, that no area should remain in a tier longer than is absolutely necessary to address the infection rate and protect the health of local people, so I can give him the reassurance that his area will stay in that tier no longer than is necessary to address the current rise in hospitalisations and infections.

Martyn Day: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I agree with him when he says that we must keep working hard together to keep this virus under control. However, I cannot help but notice that regional leaders in England have been expressing frustrations with Downing Street that are very similar to Scotland’s. Why is there an insistence on announcing measures to Westminster journalists before speaking to devolved and regional Governments? Does he not see that changing that approach could greatly improve working relationships?
Tens of millions of pounds of financial support are being announced this week. Will the Minister speak with his colleague the Chancellor and confirm that that money will be fully Barnettised, ensuring that the devolved Governments are being fully funded to take their own covid mitigation measures?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I should say that in my experience, albeit as a junior Minister, I have enjoyed a positive and constructive working relationship on this issue with the devolved Administrations and Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to that relationship and the work that those leaders in the devolved Administrations have done.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s final two points. In respect of his comments about briefings, all I would say is that I am here at the Dispatch Box announcing this to the House, and that is how I do business. On his final point, the Chancellor will, I know, have heard exactly what he said about Barnett consequentials.

Miriam Cates: None of us in South Yorkshire wanted to be in this position and, as hon. Members have already said, this is going to hit families, businesses and communities hard  at a time when we are already weary of months of not seeing family and friends. But it is important that we take swift action to protect the NHS and prevent local NHS services from becoming overwhelmed. I really do want to pay tribute to our Mayor Dan Jarvis, local leaders, No. 10 and the Department of Health, who have taken a really calm, constructive and collaborative approach over the past few days. That shows that we do not all hate each other in Yorkshire, despite the common perception.
I am also pleased that the restrictions are not open ended and that there is the 28-day review. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give exact metrics about what will be used to determine whether or not we come out of this, but it is very important to my constituents in Penistone and Stocksbridge that we know what we are aiming for. Can he guarantee that he will have regular, ongoing discussions with local leaders and local people about whether we are heading in the right direction, to make sure that people know that we are on the right track?

Edward Argar: I should have done this in responding to the shadow Secretary of State, actually: I also pay tribute to the Mayor of Sheffield City Region—a Member of this House—for his approach and to the constructive approach that we have seen on all sides in this. I put that on the record.
My hon. Friend talks about local engagement and what hope there is of reviews. The 28-day period is the sunset point at which these measures fall, unless they are renewed or altered. There are actually reviews within 14 days; the Secretary of State continues to monitor data so will be reviewing progress at more frequent intervals. I happily give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks: throughout this process there will be open lines of communication—not only with her and other colleagues, but with local leaders in the region.

Olivia Blake: Although I am horrified that we are at this position, I completely understand the need for the introduction of these measures; I hope that everyone in South Yorkshire will follow them constructively. However, we need a level of support across the country to ensure that these local measures work. Although I am pleased that we have had constructive conversations throughout this period, I am still concerned that too many people will be left behind.
I have already heard from one employer about their employees falling through the cracks of the support scheme. They are unable to access funding for childcare on the basis of this as well. The lowest paid also use universal credit as an in-work benefit. Will the Minister agree, accept and make representations to the Treasury that perhaps 80% of an income topped up by universal credit is not enough in these scenarios?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the tone of her initial remarks—she is clearly putting the health interests of her constituents first—and her perfectly reasonable question. As I set out in my statement, the job support scheme, coupled with universal credit, will give those on low incomes at least 80% of their normal income, but if there is a specific sector or case that she wants to raise, I would be delighted for her to write to me, and I will look into it.

Alexander Stafford: None of us in South Yorkshire wanted to be in the higher tiers, but we completely understand the need to save lives and protect the NHS; that is the overarching thing that we need to take away and encourage all our population to do. However, this increased tier will have an increased impact on people’s mental health. I have already been contacted today by constituents who are seriously worried about their mental health, especially when they do not have anyone to form a support bubble with. What assurances can the Minister give to me and people across Rother Valley that mental health is a key part of the system and will be looked after and helped?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have known him for many years, and he has long taken an interest in and campaigned on this issue. I can reassure him that additional investment has gone into the NHS at all levels, which includes mental health, but he is right: the impact of lockdown and these restrictions on people’s mental health should never be underestimated, so it is right that support and advice are available to people. I know that his local NHS is working very hard to ensure that that package is in place. If he wishes to talk to me subsequently, I am happy to do that.

Paul Blomfield: Clearly we have to take the measures necessary to combat the virus, and we have tried to work together on them across South Yorkshire, but the Minister knows that this deal does not meet all the concerns of local leaders, nor does it provide the support that businesses need. The ban on household mixing is clearly necessary, but it makes many cafés, restaurants and pubs with food unviable. It impacts on the music, events and creative sectors, but because they are not being required to close, they will not get the support they need. They are simply being hung out to dry. Will the Government think again and provide the support that those businesses need, to save thousands of jobs across South Yorkshire?

Edward Argar: The hon. Gentleman is always diligent and measured in representing his constituents and businesses in the House. The deal that has been reached is both fair and proportionate and reflective of the fairness across other areas that are in tier 3, and it should be taken in the context of being coupled with the broader national programme. I would not characterise the approach being taken towards hospitality in the way that he did. I pay tribute to our hospitality industry in this country, which I think is what he was seeking to do, and as I say, the support package is there to support businesses across all sectors in this country.

Andrew Murrison: Test and trace activity is rightly focused on areas of the country where there is relatively high transmission of the virus. To what extent will the Minister prioritise tier 3 areas over tier 1 areas in the protocols that the Department is drawing up for vaccination?

Edward Argar: The protocols for the distribution of any vaccine, when it becomes available, are being worked on intensively. My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which I am sure will have been heard by the Secretary of State.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let’s head up to South Yorkshire, to visit the Mayor, no less—Dan Jarvis.

Dan Jarvis: As Mayor, I think that this is the right course of action for South Yorkshire. The financial support will provide some help for our people and our economy, but we all understand that it will also mean sacrifice. Families will be separated, workers will suffer, and businesses will face uncertainty, so we need the Minister and the Government to repay that sacrifice by working closely with us, with our local authorities and with our NHS. Together, we need to do everything we can to get a grip of this disease, so that our region can move out of these restrictions as soon as possible.

Edward Argar: I reiterate the tribute I paid to the hon. Gentleman for his approach throughout this. It is abundantly clear that he and all of his colleagues have the best interests of his region at heart and have worked constructively throughout this process to get the right health and economic outcome for his area. I can absolutely give him that commitment. I and my colleagues look forward to continued close working and co-operation with him as we move forward to beat this disease in his area.

Steve Brine: The three-tiered local approach has to be right, and I pay tribute, as the Minister just did, to the cool heads of some local leaders for working with Ministers so sensibly. Surely people in South Yorkshire and elsewhere need to know where they are at and be confident that the goalposts will not move, so can the Minister please comment on stories this morning that plans are being worked up by the chief medical officer for local—not national, but local—three-week circuit breaker lockdowns in tier 2 and tier 3 areas?

Edward Argar: I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is not something I have been involved in or had sight of.

Munira Wilson: Public trust in the midst of a public health emergency is absolutely critical. People need to know what they are working towards when they are making these immense sacrifices, so may I press the Minister once again on the criteria that he has agreed with the Mayor of Sheffield city region for South Yorkshire going into tier 3 and to come out? Will those same criteria be applied to other tier 2 areas such as London, York, Essex and parts of the midlands, or will they all be subject to a series of negotiations at local level behind closed doors? The public need and want to know.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is her party’s spokesperson on this issue. I entirely understand where she is coming from and the importance of trust and transparency. I set out in the statement why the move has been made to increase the tier level—the infection rates and the hospitalisation rates—and why that development needed to be arrested by these measures. I set out in response to the shadow Secretary of State the considerations that would play a part in determining the review periods when an area could start to move back down those tiers. Those things include infection rates, the impact on the NHS and hospital capacity in  the area and other local factors. It is reasonable that we set out that broad approach, but also that we recognise that in some areas very specific local considerations will be driving growth of the disease and infection rates, and they may need to be taken into consideration as well.

Edward Leigh: If someone lives in Gainsborough and they want to take a test, they can go to the Lincolnshire showground, but equally they might go to Doncaster airport, if their work takes them up there and it is not much further. There is a mystery about infection rates in West Lindsey, because they are higher than all the surrounding areas, despite the fact that we have no university, we are a rural area and we have no large hospital. I suspect the figures are being corrupted because the large local testing site is at the Lincolnshire showground. Cases are probably coming in from outside and featuring in West Lindsey figures. That is important, not just for South Yorkshire but for everywhere else, because if those figures are wrong, how can we rely on them? How can we lock down areas and put businesses out of business if the figures simply do not add up?

Edward Argar: I am not aware of any systemic issue that is seeing false data entered, but if my right hon. Friend is happy to give me more information, I am happy to look into it for him. There can, though, be other factors beyond universities or a young population. There can be a range of things in a particular area that drive a particular spike, but I am happy to look at the information he has got.

Jim Shannon: I completely understand the reasons for this statement. Government action for Yorkshire is similar to the action we have taken in Northern Ireland with the circuit breaker. Simon Hamilton, chair of the Belfast chamber of trade and commerce, has stated, in tandem with 23 other organisations that “fewer and fewer” will survive each lockdown and
“more jobs will be lost”.
The Department for the Economy accurately estimates that those job losses could be 100,000. With the prospect of longer dole queues and poor prospects for re-employment, what discussions have taken place and what assistance can the Minister give to the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland?

Lindsay Hoyle: The statement is about South Yorkshire. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have had a little bit of something about Yorkshire. Minister, see what you can pick out of that about Yorkshire.

Edward Argar: I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the same collegiate approach we have adopted for working with South Yorkshire characterises our approach across all of the devolved Administrations and devolved nations as well. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that we missed him while he was away self-isolating for a period, so it is good to have him back? He touches on the economic impact, and he  is absolutely right to highlight that. There is a clear  support package in place, and I continue to work closely with Robin Swann and others in Northern Ireland on these matters.

Scott Benton: Last week, local politicians in Lancashire were able to put their politics aside and work constructively to agree a sensible way forward. I am delighted that politicians in South Yorkshire have now been able to replicate the same constructive cross-party approach. Will my hon. Friend commend those local politicians, including the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for the way in which those negotiations have been conducted, which has of course been in stark contrast to the behaviour of some other elected Mayors?

Edward Argar: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all local leaders and, indeed, all Members of this House who have been engaged in this process and more broadly. It is clear that when we all work together, we can achieve more to tackle this disease.

Bill Esterson: On Monday, I asked the Health Secretary about contact tracing. He answered by talking about testing, so perhaps this Minister will answer a question about contact tracing. Will the Government now give the Serco data to local public health teams, and will the Government provide the financial resources that those local teams need? That equates to roughly £300 million to the Liverpool city region, similar sums to Lancashire and to South Yorkshire, and about £500 million to Greater Manchester when compared with the £12 billion for Serco.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The data he refers to is, of course, Government data—NHS data. He talks about contact tracing, and as I said in response to his hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, the approach we adopt on both testing but particularly on contact tracing quite rightly blends the scalability of a national approach with the local knowledge of working very closely hand in hand with local public health teams. A very good example of how that can work well is in my own local city and the shadow Secretary of State’s city of Leicester.

Robbie Moore: These really are tough choices, as nobody wants to see their lives restricted or their freedoms curtailed. All of my constituents in Keighley and Ilkley have had local restrictions since the end of July, and for now at least we are in tier 2. While many are adhering incredibly diligently to these restrictions, it is clear that a sense of disenfranchisement is kicking in, with some not adhering. How can we better address this so that we give ourselves the best chance of staying in tier 2 and not going up to tier 3 like our neighbouring friends in South Yorkshire?

Edward Argar: It is very important that everyone continues to adhere to the rules put in place for the tier in which their area sits. Those rules are in place to protect public health and bring the infection rate down. I would, finally, comment—I think it was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who mentioned trust—that of course it is very important for building trust and consent that we work closely with local leaders and with local Members of Parliament, and I come to this House, as I have done today, to obtain that consent and provide that transparency so that people are more likely to comply.

Rachael Maskell: I note the agreement reached in South Yorkshire, and I fear that York is rapidly heading in the same direction, with a sharp increase in infection. Does the Minister recognise that each local authority has different economies, different complexities and different vulnerabilities, and therefore it is really important to start dialogue early with local political leaders as well as ourselves to get the right deal to prevent an escalation in tiers, but also to ensure that we get on top of the Track and Trace system to make sure that that is done locally and is effective?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think she actually made the case very well for the approach that the Government are adopting, which is local tiering, rather than a blanket national approach, because she is absolutely right that different areas of the country are different and have different circumstances. To her substantive point about early engagement and continued engagement, I am very happy to say that I am very happy to work with her. We can start that off, if she wants, with a conversation about the data and so on. I am very happy to ensure that those channels of communication are open.

Mark Harper: Enforcement is important in South Yorkshire, as it is elsewhere, and I am pleased that on today’s Order Paper there is a statutory instrument putting the requirement to self-isolate in law. However, the Minister will be aware that I have grave concerns about the powers to use reasonable force that have been given to state officials other than police officers who simply are not trained to use those powers safely. As a former Home Office Minister, I think that risks the safety and lives of individuals. May I ask the Minister to give me an assurance from the Dispatch Box that, at the earliest opportunity, those powers will be limited only to police officers? I regret to say that if he cannot give me that assurance, I will be unable to support the measures on today’s Order Paper.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question, and I am conscious of the context in which he speaks. As a former junior Minister handling prisons at the Ministry of Justice, I am conscious of the issues that he alludes to in that context and of the importance of proper training and restraint and similar. We appreciate concerns about the reasonable force allowances in the regulations. The powers to authorise persons other than the police and police community support officers to use reasonable force have not been used, and there are no intentions to use them. However, my right hon. Friend makes his point well, as always, and we are urgently reviewing those powers, given the concerns that he and others have raised around the proportionality of enforcement.

Barbara Keeley: This morning, Professor Edmunds told the Health and Social Care Committee and the Select Committee on Science and Technology that he would not follow the strategy of imposing tier 3 lockdowns on a succession of local areas. He said that would keep the R number around 1, meaning that the high rate of incidence we already have in those areas, with hospitals under strain, would just continue. Instead, a short circuit breaker, with tier 3 restrictions everywhere now, is what we were  told would bring case rates down. If that is the advice being given to the Government, why are they pursuing damaging restrictions on areas such as South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, with inadequate financial support, that are unlikely to bring cases down?

Edward Argar: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me; I did not see the evidence to the Select Committees, as I was preparing to come to the House. However, as she will be aware, the SAGE paper that was published recently, in referring to so-called local circuit-breaker lockdowns, did not say it was a one-off and would solve the problem. We are confident that we are taking a proportionate and effective approach on a regional and local basis that will, assuming that compliance is there, continue to drive down infection rates effectively, coupled with an effective economic and financial support package agreed with local leaders.

Kevin Hollinrake: Although my thoughts are with the people of South Yorkshire and businesses in South Yorkshire, my primary responsibility is to people in North Yorkshire. Will my hon. Friend help to scotch any rumours that are circulating that North Yorkshire is about to go into tier 2 when its rate of infection is well below the national average? If there is any need to put us in a higher tier, will he look to do that on a district-wide level, where there is significant variation across North Yorkshire, rather than purely at county-wide level?

Edward Argar: If I recall correctly, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to offer my hon. Friend a reassurance relatively recently in the House in respect of the approach that he was looking to take in that context, and that still stands.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister has, no doubt, given briefings to South Yorkshire colleagues, as he did with Greater Manchester MPs earlier this week, and I sincerely thank him for that engagement. It is being widely reported that the Communities Secretary is meeting Greater Manchester’s MPs about the next steps for our city region. Sadly, it seems that none of the 18 Labour MPs has received an invite. Is that an accidental oversight or further evidence of increasing ambivalence towards our city region?

Edward Argar: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no ambivalence towards his city region. There is a deep respect and affection across this House for that region and the people who live there. I am grateful to him for his kind words about the briefing I led with colleagues across all parties relatively recently on this. I am happy to look into the specific question he raises about being briefed by the Local Government Secretary.

Jacob Young: I pay tribute to the Mayor of South Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). He has worked constructively with the Government to ensure proper northern leadership in the interests of public health. Will the Minister confirm that when other areas face changes to local restrictions, his Department will continue to work with local leaders and Members of Parliament? Will he also confirm that there are no plans to move the Tees Valley, and specifically Redcar and Cleveland where cases have recently dropped, into tier 3?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is right to talk about the importance of local leadership and engagement. Local leaders and Members of Parliament know their areas best, and it is right to continue to engage closely with those people. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work that has recently been done in that respect. On his final point, I am not aware of any such proposition.

Alison Thewliss: People in South Yorkshire, as well as in my constituency, struggle to make ends meet on the UK Government’s pretendy living wage, which falls far below the real living wage. How does the Minister expect people to live and pay their bills and rent on only two-thirds of that poverty pay?

Edward Argar: As the hon. Lady will have heard me say, the combined support schemes, particularly where there is the UC top-up, will mean that people get at least 80% of their wages. I am afraid that I refute her point about the living wage in this country, as I believe it is a significant achievement by this Government and the previous Chancellor, George Osborne. It is a huge step forward, and rather than belittling it, we should recognise the impact it has had.

Martin Vickers: South Yorkshire is where many, perhaps most, visitors to Cleethorpes come from. They are very welcome and vital to the local hospitality sector, but many of them occupy caravans and chalets for weeks and months at a time. Again, that is welcome, but there are concerns among local people that people perhaps come and go during this period to and from an area in tier 3. What support can the Government offer to the local authority to monitor that?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend highlights an important point, and we have been clear that people in tier 3 areas should not undertake travel in and out of that area. They should abide by the rules of the area in which they live, rather than travelling to another area and applying the rules in that area. The rules apply on the basis of the area in which someone lives.

Meg Hillier: One big concern about the local lockdowns in South Yorkshire and elsewhere is that if there is not enough money to support businesses to survive, there will be a longer-term impact on the economy and individual livelihoods if that is not put right. That will have a big impact on public health, and one of the biggest concerns is the loneliness of people living in single households, and the impact on their mental health. How is the Minister looking ahead—I hope that he will answer this point directly—to ensure that there is no long-term oncost to the health service from this misery for people who are left alone and are now unable to mix with households in South Yorkshire and other areas with hard lockdowns?

Edward Argar: The hon. Lady makes an important point about loneliness and its impact on mental health. She will know that support bubbles still exist, but she alludes to a broader point about long-term mental health support. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), we  have invested heavily in the NHS, which includes funding for mental health support services. The hon. Lady is right: this is not just about funding during this pandemic; this is about being aware of people’s long-term needs and the impact on them. I am happy to commit to considering that issue carefully in the months and years ahead.

Matt Vickers: These tough measures will have a huge impact on the lives of local people. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will do everything they can to provide an extensive package of support to local people, businesses and councils and that his Department will continue to do everything it can to avoid the need for such a lockdown in Stockton South?

Edward Argar: I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance.

Tim Farron: The hospitality and tourism industry in Cumbria is comfortably our biggest employer. It was very much looking forward to half-term next week, as a chance for businesses to pick up after the enormous damage they have sustained as a result of the virus. However, we are seeing cancellation after cancellation, because neighbouring economies in Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and now, of course, other parts of the north England have been put into tier 3 and people are therefore not able to travel. Rather than quibbling over £5 million, people in Cumbria are getting nothing—no compensation for their businesses collapsing. Will the Minister commit to making sure there is support of the hospitality and tourism industry in tier 1 places such as Cumbria, where our market has dried up because our neighbours are in tier 3?

Lindsay Hoyle: This is about Yorkshire, so if we could mention Yorkshire it would help.

Edward Argar: I am sure the point the hon. Gentleman raises will be pertinent to areas in tier 1 nearby to South Yorkshire, too. He makes his point typically well. I recognise the impact on the hospitality industry and on other businesses, not just in the directly affected area but more broadly. As I say, he makes his point well, and I am sure the Chancellor will have heard what he says.

Robert Largan: None of us wants to see restrictions like those announced for Yorkshire today, but we all recognise the need to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. However, I am increasingly concerned about the long-term health impact the pandemic is having on things like mental health and long-term serious health conditions. A good example is the recent commissioning decision by NHS England to withdraw breast cancer screening units from places such as New Mills, Buxton and Chapel-en-le-Frith, citing covid as the reason for the withdrawal. Will the Minister agree to meet me, so we can discuss how to reinstate breast cancer screening units to High Peak?

Edward Argar: I, or a fellow Minister from the Department, will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Peter Kyle: Local and regional authority leaders from South Yorkshire and right the way across the country will have heard the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister repeatedly say in the past 24 hours that they cannot exceed the items offered to Merseyside in their negotiations elsewhere. Will the Minister at least be honest and say that this is not a negotiation? It is a take-it-or-leave-it deal that other authorities can take. Those who lead authorities have to ask themselves the question: what is the point of negotiating?

Edward Argar: The hon. Gentleman knows I have huge respect for him—indeed, a huge fondness for him —but I am afraid I cannot agree with what he says. We have been working very closely in a collegiate way with local authorities. It is absolutely right that, alongside that negotiation or discussion on the package and support they need, we recognise that we have to be fair and proportionate across other regions that are in the same tier. We have to ensure that the approach we are adopting, which we are, is both fair and proportionate.

Lee Rowley: North East Derbyshire sits on the outskirts of South Yorkshire and many towns and villages, such as Dronfield, Eckington, Killamarsh and Ridgeway, look towards Sheffield for work and education. For the benefit of those residents, will the Minister confirm that there has been no change to the tier level in North East Derbyshire, that the rules remain the same unless those residents are travelling to Sheffield and that North East Derbyshire will continue to be dealt with on an independent basis, while working closely with Sheffield when we review our tier status in future?

Edward Argar: As my hon. Friend knows, I know Dronfield having spent a very happy day there with him in the course of his successful election campaign. I can reassure him that the situation, as I stand here, remains exactly as he sets out.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Bill Presented

Financial Services Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen, Kemi Badenoch and Wendy Morton, presented a Bill to make provision about financial services and markets; to make provision about debt respite schemes; to make provision about Help-to-Save accounts; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 200) with explanatory notes (Bill 200-EN).

Vehicle Registration Offences (Penalty Points)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Andrew Griffith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make vehicle registration offences under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 attract driving record penalty points; and for connected purposes.
The Bill I present today aims to save lives and to relieve the stress on residents living near roads by improving the ability of the police to identify, and therefore prosecute, antisocial or reckless road users. I should like to be clear that the Bill is not in any way about targeting motorcyclists or, indeed, motorists in general. There are more than 1.25 million motorcyclists in the UK. It is a great sport and industry. I am proud that Destination Triumph has a fantastic dealership for that British-owned brand in Washington in my constituency.
The vast majority of motorcyclists use the roads responsibly and West Sussex welcomes careful riders and drivers alike. I arrived at the subject of the Bill, however, as a result of the misery inflicted on my constituents every summer, but which reached a new intensity during lockdown—misery because, on a day when the roads are dry, the residents of small towns and villages are woken by the sound of motorcycles and there is no respite until sunset. In places around Wisborough Green, Petworth, Bury Hill, Coldwaltham and Tillington, my constituents have to keep their windows closed, however warm the day. Pedestrians feel intimidated and this issue causes a great deal of mental stress.
This is not just about noise. My constituents travel on statistically the most dangerous roads in the whole of Sussex. In fact, the Chichester Observer reported last month that the Road Safety Federation identified the A285 between Petworth and Chichester as one of the worst in the whole UK, with 29 serious and fatal crashes between 2013 and 2018. Nearly two thirds of those involved motorcyclists. Similarly dangerous roads include the A272 from Tillington to Cowfold, the A283 between Fittleworth and Steyning and the A29 from Bury Hill to Adversane. These all carry a particularly dangerous mix of vehicle types, even before the addition of a speeding motorcycle or sports car. Even the shortest journey is likely to include an encounter with tractors and combines, a peloton of bicycles or the local bus service. Things will improve when the long-awaited A27 Arundel bypass is built and takes heavy goods vehicles away from the most dangerous A roads that I have mentioned, but the upgrade was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport only last week and will therefore take many years to arrive.
This issue is not confined to Arundel and South Downs. Members of this House who are supporting today’s Bill have told me of their concerns about the same issue on the A32 and the A272 in the Meon Valley,  on the A27 at Sherfield English in Hampshire and in the Kingsnorth area of Ashford in Kent. Nationally, five people are killed and a further 68 receive life-changing injuries every day on our roads. That is one terrible family tragedy every 20 minutes. It falls to the police to do their best to address the twin impacts of antisocial noise and road safety, and I am grateful for all the efforts of my local police commissioner, Katy Bourne, and Chief Constable Jo Shiner.
This summer has seen a real effort by Sussex police under Operation Downsway, which I saw at first hand out on patrol with Chief Inspector Jon Carter and Police Constable Van Der Wee. However, despite an increase in police numbers—380 new officers this year in Sussex and more than 4,000 nationwide—the police simply cannot be everywhere all the time. Cameras play a vital role in extending their eyes, and that is where today’s Bill will help by closing a loophole in the law.
Currently, although speeding offences are endorseable—that is, they result in points on the offender’s driving licence—the offence of displaying a non-compliant number plate, or even of displaying no number plate at all, carries only a fine. That enables antisocial drivers on our roads, especially in rural areas, to defy both speed and number plate recognition cameras with relative impunity. That is particularly true for owners of high-performance bikes costing tens of thousands of pounds, where a £100 fine for infringing the law on public roads is far less than the cost of admission to a private and regulated track day.
While I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members have no first-hand familiarity with the matter, when it comes to driving, points definitely do not mean prizes. More points mean substantially higher insurance premiums, and multiple offences quickly make the loss of a licence a real consideration. Unlike a fine, penalty points are a real sanction and are more likely to change behaviour. Indeed, I believe that the Home Office Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s working group has made a similar plea for more robust penalties in this area.
Let me conclude by asking the Government and hon. Members from across the House to join me in supporting this Bill today. No novelty or innovation is required. It marries an existing offence with an existing sanction that is a tried and tested part of the motoring statute book. It is a measure that has support from the police and residents alike. It is clear and simple and does exactly what it says on the tin. I am therefore pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Griffith, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Bob Blackman, Caroline Nokes, Damian Green, Damian Hinds, Mrs Flick Drummond, Henry Smith, James Sunderland, Sir Mike Penning, Sir Peter Bottomley, and Tim Loughton present the Bill.
Andrew Griffith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be presented (Bill 201)

Opposition Day - 13th Allotted DayOpposition Day

Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support

Eleanor Laing: I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. He has done this because the motion was tabled only shortly before the moment of interruption yesterday, and because one of his predecessors selected a manuscript amendment to an Opposition day motion in comparable circumstances on Monday 3 December 2001, thus creating a precedent.

Angela Rayner: I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to publish clear and fair national criteria for financial support for jobs and businesses in areas facing additional restrictions, to be voted on in Parliament; and calls on the Government to make good on its claim that workers faced with hardship who are subject to the Job Support Scheme extension will receive at least 80 percent of their previous incomes.
I start by placing on record my thanks to the staff at Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport who recently cared for my aunt, who died of coronavirus last week. I speak today not just as a Member of this House, or just as a Mancunian, but as someone like the many others across our city and our country who have in the past few weeks lost loved ones to this terrible virus. That, more than anything, is why I come here wanting the Government not to fail but to succeed, because lives literally depend on it.
We know that a public health response will save lives only if it is supported by a fair economic settlement. The British people want to do the right thing, and they will do the right thing, but we need to support them in doing so. That is why I was so appalled by what I witnessed yesterday. I was with fellow Greater Manchester MPs on a Zoom call with the Health Secretary, who was handing us scraps from the Prime Minister, while our elected Mayor found out from Twitter. The Government then tried to blame it all on our Mayor for not doing what he was ordered to do from Whitehall. I have heard of power without accountability, but apparently the Government’s idea of devolution is accountability without the power.
We were offered £8 per head—or, to put it another way, 30 seconds of work for a consultant working on the collapsed test and trace system. Let me say this: £8 per person is an insult. And now the Government are attempting to play us off against each other across GM. Well, let me tell the Prime Minister: our Mayor stood up for Greater Manchester, but he spoke for Great Britain. Indeed, his call for Parliament to have a say and a vote on these measures is one that so many Government Members have made.

Gary Sambrook: On the point about votes in Parliament, many of us called for votes in this place on national restrictions a couple of weeks ago but, unfortunately, near enough all Opposition  Members did not bother to turn up for those votes, including the one on the rule of six. If the Opposition get their way and have votes on localised restrictions, will they even turn up?

Angela Rayner: As the hon. Member has turned up today, I hope he will do the right thing and support people with an economic package so that they can do the right thing and we can save people’s lives across Greater Manchester and the whole of this country. I hope he will do the right thing and support us in the Lobby tonight.
The Government have not given us the chance to have our say, so today we are giving the House the chance to do so. Our motion calls for the Government to bring forward fair national criteria for financial support in areas facing additional restrictions, and it provides for Members to have a vote on the criteria.

Tan Dhesi: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making some excellent points in her speech. Given that the Government’s strategy to deal with the pandemic is not working, does she agree that, rather than using divisive tactics and treating the regions of our nation with utter contempt, the Prime Minister needs to adopt a united, one nation approach? Does she also agree that, if we want to impose stricter measures, we need to provide support to individuals and businesses, and that we cannot have lockdown on the cheap?

Angela Rayner: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Over the past 24 hours, the people of Greater Manchester, regardless of their political persuasions or colours, have been absolutely dismayed by the way in which our democratically elected Mayor has been treated, but this is about the treatment not just of our Mayor but of the people of Greater Manchester. This is not some spiteful little game; this is about people’s lives, people’s loved ones and people’s jobs. They have spent years building up our economy in Greater Manchester. This Government choosing the path that they have chosen has done one thing for Greater Manchester: it has completely brought us together in saying that this Government and Prime Minister must do the right thing by the whole of our nation and support everywhere, not pick us off one by one.

Alun Cairns: What advice would the hon. Lady offer my constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan, where the infection rates are exceptionally low, given that a one-size-fits-all approach has been taken across the whole of Wales? Retailers, hairdressers, personal service providers, beauticians and all those sorts of businesses have been closed, irrespective of the exceptionally low rate. Does that make sense? What does she have to say to those businesses that have invested all their time, effort, money and innovation in creating employment and wealth?

Angela Rayner: The right hon. Member makes a point about what the Welsh Government are doing. What they are doing is putting people, business and lives first. They are working with local government and with businesses to bring the R number down. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has said that the plan for Greater Manchester as it currently stands will not bring the R rate down and that it will lead us into poverty and destitution. When I speak to the experts, they tell me that poverty and destitution  have a link to how deadly this virus is. In parts of areas such as Oldham in my constituency that have faced restrictions since July—I have not been able to see my granddaughter because of those restrictions—the rates have gone up. We do not want to plunge our businesses into destitution. I am proud of the Welsh Government’s defence of the people and their support for the people of Wales. I just wish we had a better Government here in Parliament.
Our motion calls on the Government to implement their own promise that workers on the job support scheme extension will receive at least 80% of their previous income. I remember the promises the Prime Minister made, not just in this crisis but before it. He offered levelling up for communities such as mine, but he is not levelling us up; he is letting us down. Under Thatcher, we were consigned to managed decline, but now it feels like mismanaged decline. And it is not just a conflict between the north and the south, or between London and the rest. The elected leaders of our nation’s cities, regions and countries have been treated with the same contempt, from Wales to Wigan.

Patrick Grady: I pass on the condolences of the Scottish National party to the hon. Lady and her family on the loss of her aunt.
We are not in a position to field a Front-Bench spokesperson today—that might have been easier if the Government had allowed us virtual participation—but I can confirm that we will support the official Opposition in the Lobby this evening, precisely because of the hon. Lady’s point about the need for support across the UK. Any enhanced package that is provided to Liverpool, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire must attract consequentials above what has already been guaranteed to Scotland. Scottish businesses are looking at the additional package of support that the Government have found for these English regions, and expect additional funding to be delivered to Scotland. Does she agree that that should happen for Scotland and the other devolved Administrations?

Angela Rayner: I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I absolutely agree. All our nations and regions —the whole of Great Britain—have to come together, because this virus is a challenge for us all. We cannot treat people in different parts of the country and in our nations disproportionately and disgracefully.
In Greater Manchester, we were promised a powerhouse, but what we have at the moment is a power grab. Even here in London, just this week, the Government have threatened to seize control of the tube. We now have a Prime Minister so determined to punish a Labour Mayor that he wants to whack a transport tax on his own constituents, yet the Government still refuse to take the decisive national action that is needed. Instead, they have tried to play people off against each other—divide and misrule.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s aunt.
Will the hon. Lady she be straight and honest with British citizens when she talks about a national lockdown? Is it not the reality that the SAGE paper says that it might take multiple circuit breakers to keep this virus at low levels? Will she be clear about the impact that that would have on jobs and businesses in this country?

Angela Rayner: The hon. Member invites me to be clear and honest, and the one thing that probably most people know is that I tell it how it is and I always have. I can be clear and honest with him: the Prime Minister’s plan, as it currently stands, will not protect the people of Greater Manchester and will plunge us into more poverty. We have seen the evidence that says that. I promise him and other hon. Members across the House that the Labour party will always put the people, and the protection and security of the people, first. I ask the hon. Member to get the Prime Minister to do the same thing, instead of playing party politics with people’s lives and livelihoods.
Today this House can vote for a fair deal for all and to end these political games. No more will the Health Secretary have to tour the country like a pound shop Noel Edmonds, announcing “Deal or no deal?”. The Government can honour their own promises that every worker facing hardship on the job support scheme will get at least 80% of their previous income, because what is good enough for the office worker in the City of London is good enough for the caterer in the city of Manchester, and what was good enough for the whole country in March is good enough for the midlands and the north today. We are trying to hold the Government to their own promises. Businesses need consistency, and they need that promise honoured.
The Prime Minister told the House on 14 October that
“whatever happens, a combination of the job support scheme and universal credit will mean that nobody gets less than 93% of their current income.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 368.]
He then said that those on low incomes will get at least 80% of their income. Perhaps he can tell that to the waitress in my constituency who earned £9 an hour on a 32-hour week, serving in a central Manchester bar that has now closed. The Resolution Foundation has shown that she will end up with less than 70% of that wage under the Government’s current plan. So the Government are telling my constituents to survive on less than the minimum wage for months, because the Government cannot tell us when an area will leave tier 3 and how those restrictions will be lifted.

Toby Perkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and thank her for the case that she is making. Is she interested, as I am, that not a single one of the interventions that she has faced from the Conservative side has been relevant to the motion that we are debating? They all seem to be dragging us back on to Labour party policy, rather than standing up for the financial settlement that they are offering to Manchester, and that we know will be going to so many other areas. So can she help me in inviting them to actually speak about the 80% that we are trying to ensure gets into some of the most impoverished people’s—some of the most impoverished workers’—pockets, rather than trying to change the debate into the one they want to have?

Angela Rayner: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will go a little bit further and compliment some of the Tory Members who have stood up as part of Greater Manchester, and I will be incredibly disappointed if what I have seen over the past 24 hours results in this  becoming a party political fight. Because in Greater Manchester, despite what the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary were trying to suggest, we were united in trying to support our citizens across the conurbation in doing the right thing, bringing the virus rate down and supporting our economy. I hope we can continue to do that. I hope we do not get distracted by messages that are not in the motion, and I absolutely hope the Prime Minister does the right thing, because this is not just about Greater Manchester—this is coming to a town near you. In so many areas now, the R number is increasing. So many areas are in tier 2; so many areas are going to go into tier 3. This is a marker to ensure that our economy survives through those problems.

Clive Betts: On that point about coming to a town near you: it is indeed coming to cities and towns in the Sheffield city region, it was announced today. The package of assistance is totally inadequate. It is nothing like what the leaders and the Mayor asked for. It is exactly the same as has been offered to other areas—the standard package. It is not locally negotiated; it is the standard package. As the leader of Rotherham said, “They put lots of civil servants into a room with us to tell us what we couldn’t have.” That is actually what has been happening in the negotiations.

Angela Rayner: I thank my hon. Friend for his insight. Many of the local leaders I have heard from have said that it felt like they had been blackmailed and pressurised into taking a deal. Greater Manchester and the Mayor were not just trying arbitrarily to get more than somewhere else. We put a package together based on the needs of our city, our conurbation, our lowest-paid and the businesses that needed the support. It was not a bargaining chip to get this or that; it was about making sure that there was a floor that meant people were given the support that, by the way, this Government promised. They promised that support, and we are just asking them to keep to their promise.

Nadia Whittome: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is grossly unfair that while the Prime Minister, reportedly, is complaining about not being able to live off £150 k a year, he is expecting my constituents in Nottingham, and all the constituents of every one of us in this House, to live off two thirds of the minimum wage unless a proper economic settlement is provided?

Angela Rayner: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. People on the Government Benches might grunt, but my hon. Friend was a care worker before coming into Parliament, like myself, and knows exactly how people on the minimum wage feel, and I commend her for standing up for her constituents, not leaving them behind like many Members on those Benches seem to be doing now.
Even the two-thirds wage support under the job support scheme extension is only available to businesses legally required to close. Someone who works for a firm that is not required to close, but whose business is severely impacted as a result of the restrictions—such as a brewery supplying pubs that have to close—gets absolutely nothing.

Imran Hussain: My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution, which highlights the points. Does she agree that much of the debate is around tier 3 support, not to say that tier 2 areas have no support whatsoever, which emphasises the point that she makes?

Angela Rayner: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I say to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) who keeps chuntering: you had your chance, mate. Let other people in.
For hundreds of years, Mancunians have been told to know our place, but we have never listened—from the People’s History Museum to the Mechanics Institute, from our science and industry to women’s suffrage. We will not be told what our place is, and we will not be bullied into taking it. We are proud of our history and proud of our collective contribution to our great country and determined to build a great future together.
This is not just about Greater Manchester; this is about all of us. We will not be picked off one by one. We will not be offered the crumbs when we helped bake the loaf. We deserve a fair slice and our people deserve a Government willing to protect them and to do as the Chancellor promised—“Whatever it takes”. In recent days, it has been Lancashire, Liverpool and Greater Manchester. Next week, and in the weeks ahead, it will be communities in other parts of the country that find themselves in tier 3. If the Government are prepared to wilfully inflict so much harm on their own people in the middle of a pandemic in one part of the country, they will do it to people elsewhere as well.
We are staring down the barrel of a bleak winter, because the Government have lost control of the virus: infections are rising; hospital admissions are rising; and deaths, tragically, are rising. The testing system has collapsed. People and businesses across the country will be anxious that they will not be able to make ends meet and put food on the table. Our motion today will ensure a fair national deal for the country, a vote of this House on it and the Government’s own promises to workers kept. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.

Eleanor Laing: Order. [Interruption.] Do not heckle me while I am on my feet. I call Steve Barclay to move the manuscript amendment.

Steve Barclay: I beg to move a manuscript amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“recognises the virus is spreading differently across the country which supports the need for a regional and local approach; acknowledges the fact that repeated national lockdowns should be avoided given the cost they have on mental wellbeing, access to NHS treatment, and jobs in the economy; supports the Government’s Job Support Scheme which protects the jobs and incomes of those in affected businesses; recognises the extra financial support provided to Local Authorities for enforcement, local contact tracing and businesses, and approves of Government trying to work with local representatives to improve enforcement and Test and Trace.”.
May I begin by expressing my condolences, and the condolences of colleagues on these Benches, to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the loss of her aunt?
The hon. Lady was right in her opening speech to talk about the shared desire of the British people whom we represent to do the right thing. That is why all Members of this House want to protect the lives not just of our family members, but of our constituents and to balance the actions that are needed to do so with protecting jobs and businesses. The best way to make good for the workers whom she referenced in her motion is to reduce the spread of the virus through targeted action. That is why the Prime Minister was right to outline a balanced approach, taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. Indeed, the deputy chief medical officer said just yesterday, when supporting the tiered regional approach, that it would be “inappropriate” to enforce a national circuit breaker as it is not
“consistent with the epidemiological picture.”
In fact, to be fair, the shadow Health Secretary was right also to talk about the wider damage of a national lockdown on our economy and society.

Alun Cairns: The evidence from the deputy chief medical officer in England is quite stark, and the statements really make people pay attention. Has my right hon. Friend seen any counter-evidence from the Welsh Government to suggest that one size fits all? My constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan have to face the lockdown of all businesses, as we did in March, in spite of the area having exceptionally low infection rates.

Steve Barclay: What was clear from what the deputy chief medical officer said was the importance of targeted action. There has been concern in respect of the Welsh Government, but I recognise that all leaders are balancing these difficult decisions. That is why I pay tribute to the leadership in Liverpool, Lancashire and South Yorkshire, who have worked constructively with the Government.

Chris Bryant: Today is the anniversary of the terrible events at Aberfan, and none of us will ever forget in Wales. I am enormously grateful to the Minister for providing £2.5 million for the moving of the tip in Tylorstown; I hope that that is just a down-payment on the rest of the money that will come. Will the Barnett formula be applied to all the financial awards that have been made to Manchester, Lancashire and other parts of England, so that additional money comes to Wales? My biggest fear is that there are so many businesses and individual tradespeople who simply cannot afford to take a fortnight off to self-isolate unless there is financial support for them.

Steve Barclay: First, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the importance of today, the anniversary of a national tragedy that unites us all. As I said to him last time, I am keen to work with him constructively, as I know he is, to take that work forward. Later today, I have a call with the Finance Ministers in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations, so I will be able to talk further about that. As a fellow Unionist, he will know that one of the advantages we have had throughout this pandemic is the broad shoulders we have been able to provide as a United Kingdom to the various business support and job support measures. What is announced for England is subject to the usual Barnett process, and I will discuss that. One of the  concerns of Members across the House is about decisions taken in Wales that have an economic impact. It is important that these decisions are co-ordinated through the Joint Biosecurity Centre, in order that we have a consistent, scientific approach. That is a key issue that a number of Members have concerns about.

Toby Perkins: The Minister suggested a moment ago that the Mayor of Manchester had not been constructive; he praised how constructive the Mayors who had come to an agreement with him were. The Mayor of Manchester made a request for £90 million and was willing to be negotiated all the way down to £65 million, which sounds incredibly constructive to me. In the spirit of trying to bring everyone back together, would it not be better for him to recognise that the Mayor of Manchester is doing what he thinks is right—as are other Mayors and council leaders in other areas, whether or not they agree with the position that the Prime Minister and the Government come up with—and to say that everyone in this is attempting to be constructive?

Steve Barclay: I was making a factual point that picked up on the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. The Mayor of Manchester, in his discussions with Government, expressly said that Manchester should be treated differently from other areas. The hon. Lady said that the Mayor of Manchester “spoke for Great Britain”. That does a disservice to other local leaders, who have also spoken for their areas and have worked constructively with Government. I do not think it is the case that the Mayor of Manchester, unlike the Mayor of Liverpool, speaks for Great Britain in the way that the hon. Lady suggested.
The Mayor of Manchester’s position is not deliverable operationally, because local authorities do not have access to welfare payments for the dynamic aspect of joint job support—I can come on to that in my remarks—and it was at odds with the tiering approach that we set out. There is a difference, I am sorry to say, between the approach taken by the Mayor of Manchester and the constructive approach taken by other local leaders. I do not accept the premise from the hon. Lady that the Mayor of Manchester alone speaks for Great Britain, and other local leaders in Liverpool, Lancashire, South Yorkshire and elsewhere do not, or that businesses in those areas should in some way be treated worse than the businesses in Manchester—that seems a remarkable position for the Opposition to take.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Steve Barclay: I will make a little progress and then of course I will give way.
In taking forward the targeted action plan that the Prime Minister has set out, we recognise that there will be significant local economic impacts, particularly for the areas in tier 3. That is why the Government have set out a package of support, and indeed why, as I say, the Mayors in other areas have worked constructively with it. This package has a number of parts. I heard reference in the shadow Minister’s opening remarks to £8 per head. That is just one component of a much wider package. It may therefore be helpful to take the House through the full suite of funding that is available.
First, local authorities are absolutely critical to the tier 3 restrictions. That is why, in addition to the £3.7 billion of un-ring-fenced grants that were announced earlier  this year, the Prime Minister announced a further £1 billion of support, so that is agreed funding for local authorities that will be allocated to them shortly. In addition to that, local authorities in tier 3 will receive a further £8 per head in respect of public health measures specifically linked to enforcement within the outbreak management fund. That goes alongside other measures such as the availability of military support, which sits in addition to the infection control funding that local authorities also have access to—a further £300 million that will support localised test and trace services, specifically within tier 3—and the £1.1 billion to support infection control within the adult social care sector. Before we get on to the discussion around business support or the support for individuals through the job support scheme, it is important not to talk about local authority support just in terms of £8 per head, because that is one component of a much wider package of support that the Prime Minister has announced.

Clive Betts: I welcome the support for local testing, tracking and tracing. It should have been done months ago: that is the reality of the situation. As regards local negotiations—I put this to the Health Secretary last night and he did not deny it—there are not negotiations; there is a financial package that the Government have decided on that has been offered to all areas that have been put up to tier 3 status. It is a case of saying, “Take it or leave it: there’s no extra money going to be negotiated.” That is exactly what leaders in South Yorkshire have said it is: lots of civil servants in a room telling us what we cannot have. These have been the discussions, not negotiations, that have been happening in South Yorkshire in the past few days.

Steve Barclay: There has been a framework that we have used to shape our discussions. However, is this not what the Opposition motion, in essence, is calling for—a nationalised approach? In fact, we just heard an Opposition Member calling for the exact opposite in saying that the Mayor of Manchester had a case that was supposedly better than that of the Mayors in Liverpool or South Yorkshire, so the Mayor of Manchester should be treated a preferential way to constituents elsewhere in the north-west. Yet the hon. Gentleman, who I know comes at this very constructively—I recognise that that has always been his approach in the House—says something different. There seems to be confusion among Opposition Members. Do they want a national approach or do they want the Mayor of Manchester to be able to negotiate something allegedly on behalf of Great Britain? I do not think that was his electoral mandate.

Tan Dhesi: Many individuals are not eligible for either the self-employed income grant scheme or the coronavirus job retention scheme. I have been contacted by many of my Slough constituents, particularly the self-employed, who fear that after November they will see their incomes plummet. Does the Minister agree that they cannot be ignored and that they need support, especially if they are to go into increased lockdown restrictions?

Steve Barclay: I do agree that they cannot be ignored. In the third section of my speech I will come on to the individual support that we have in place and where that stands in international comparisons. Indeed, we debated that at Treasury questions only yesterday.

Rachael Maskell: The reality is that whether in Lancashire, Liverpool, South Yorkshire or Manchester, there are insufficiencies in the package that the Government are putting on the table. I know from my own constituents in York Central, now in tier 2, that our economy is collapsing. We need to have the proper underpinning, and that is why we need the dialogue. Different economies across the country have different complexities and different needs, and that is what the Minister really needs to get a grip of.

Steve Barclay: Sure, but for much of the passage of dealing with the pandemic, Opposition Members have often cited international comparisons. Now, when we point out that the scheme we have brought forward does stand very strong comparison internationally—in fact, the furlough scheme for eight months at 80% was way above what most international comparators offered—they say, “Actually, we do not want to apply international standards anymore. We want to apply a purely bespoke approach.”
The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that businesses are facing real pain. There is huge pressure on jobs, and that is why the Chancellor set out, in the summer economic update, the acceleration of infrastructure schemes—I think she and I would agree on them—such as the green jobs for decarbonising public sector buildings and how we will meet our net zero obligations. I suspect we share the desire to create jobs through moving that forward and the acceleration of infrastructure through Project Speed.
The Chancellor set out his plan for jobs—the doubling of work coaches, the tripling of traineeships, the £2,000 for apprenticeships—because, as the hon. Lady rightly identifies, those businesses are under significant pressure. That is why, alongside the package of measures for local authorities, we have also applied business grant support of over £11 billion, including funding of leisure and hospitality grants of between £10,000 and £25,000. Further to that, the Government have allocated discretionary business support to mayors, in the case of Liverpool and Lancashire, of a further £30 million. To help businesses with their fixed costs, such as rent and bills, we have also introduced a new business grant scheme in England, and any business legally required to close can now claim up to £3,000 depending on the rateable value of their property. They can claim grant payments of up to £1,500 per fortnight and keep claiming that as long as their businesses are required to close. That is money that does not need to be repaid.
While the grants are England-only, we are the Government for the whole United Kingdom. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in his place, about what that means for the UK’s ability to support businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—which we are committed to doing as the United Kingdom Government —it means we have guaranteed a further £1.3 billion for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should they choose to follow suit.

Kevin Hollinrake: Does the Minister agree that the most important thing we can do for businesses is to allow them to stay open and to keep trading? Where we are requiring businesses to close, the schemes are good and purposeful, but there are some businesses that, because of the restrictions—for example, in hospitality  with the one household rule—are effectively unviable as it is restricting their business to such a significant degree. Will he consider widening the job support scheme, for example, to those businesses that are just not viable in tier 2 and tier 3 for that reason?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we debated this yesterday. Much of the debate is about tier 3, but there are businesses that are feeling the impact in tier 2, and we are acutely aware of that and we are discussing that with business leaders. The key issue there is that we have taken toggling measures, for example, the cut in VAT and the extension of the loans. |As he knows, as a senior business figure himself, cash flow is a huge issue for businesses, and the Chancellor has been very keen to work constructively with all business leaders, the trade unions and others, and to consult widely. We have been willing to listen and to extend, for example, the loans that were available in order to pick up exactly the point my hon. Friend makes in terms of businesses in tier 3.

Ben Lake: The Minister mentioned earlier that he will meet the Finance Ministers of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland later this afternoon. Is he in a position to tell the House whether he expects further support packages for Wales to be announced at that meeting ahead of the two-week firebreak that will come in on Friday?

Steve Barclay: We have a long-standing and established methodology in terms of support across the United Kingdom through the Barnett process that allows the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I suspect that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) wants to come in on that point, so I will give way. It will be done through the Barnett process, but there are some specific issues raised, such as the guarantee, which we have discussed previously.

Patrick Grady: When the Minister meets the Finance Ministers this afternoon, he will hopefully be able to answer the points that the Scottish Finance Secretary raised in her letter to the Chancellor this morning asking for clarification about precisely this issue. We welcome the £700 million for support, but it is not clear whether that is purely for business support or whether it is supposed to cover all the additional consequences and costs that come from covid, including for the health service. It is important that devolved Administrations are given the support they need and any consequences that come from additional funding to the city regions.

Steve Barclay: I was reading that very letter at my desk this morning ahead of the meeting, and I know exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman refers to. We recognise—I think this was behind the constructive discussions we have had with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments—that we all need to display flexibility, given the unprecedented nature of covid. The volatility of the size of additional payments for covid is why we gave the guarantee, which I think the hon. Gentleman would equally concede was welcomed by the Scottish Government, as it allowed clearer planning in their response to covid. However, I would also make the point—on this we may disagree—that it is the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom that allow the scale of the UK Government’s response, which has protected so many jobs and businesses in Scotland.
The third area of the Government’s response, which speaks directly to the motion before the House, concerns individual support. Businesses that have been legally required to close, whether in tier 3 areas or elsewhere, will be able to claim a direct wage subsidy. For people unable to work for one week or more, their employer will still pay two thirds of their normal salary and the UK Government will cover the cost. The existing furlough scheme continues throughout October, with the new job support scheme available from November, so there will be no break in support for employees. To give businesses and people certainty, the scheme will run for six months through to the spring. The job support scheme is in line with schemes in most other major European countries, and to support the lowest paid through the crisis, we have also made our welfare system more generous and more responsive, with an additional £9 billion of funding.
Let me give the House some examples of how the job support scheme will work and interact with universal credit. A single person aged over 25 working full time on the national living wage and living in a one-bed, privately rented flat in Manchester will still receive 92% of their original net income. Likewise, thanks to the combination of the job support scheme and universal credit, a couple with one child living in a two-bedroom privately rented house, where one works part time and the other full time on the national living wage, will receive 90% of their original net income.
The question that was never answered by the Mayor of Manchester was how he would administer a top-up of the job support scheme, when he does not operationally have access to the information required to dynamically make the interactions of those payments work. It is not only that he wanted Manchester to be treated differently from Liverpool and Lancashire; he was also changing the purpose of the business support payments from one that was directed at supporting businesses in tier 3 areas to one that was about changes to our welfare provision across the entire United Kingdom.
I know that many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have been engaging constructively with the Government during these challenging times. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for Leigh (James Grundy), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for Southport (Damien Moore). Despite being relatively new to this House, they have shown real leadership in their communities, supporting families, businesses and the vulnerable, and a determination to put their constituents first and do all we can to stop the spread of this dreadful virus.
This Government are always willing to listen and to work with local leaders. The critical point is that none of these policies exists in isolation. Taken together as a package, the economic support that we are providing for areas facing higher restrictions is broad, deep and consistent, and of course all that is on top of the £200 billion of support that we have already provided through our plan for jobs. I urge anyone who questions the support that we are providing to look at the whole plan that we have set out: half a billion pounds for local enforcement; over a billion pounds for local business support; grants of half a billion pounds for businesses ordered to close every month; billions of pounds to support jobs and incomes; and billions more to strengthen our welfare safety net. This Government will continue  to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people in every region of our country, while also taking targeted action to reduce the spread of the virus.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: It will be obvious to everyone in the Chamber and those who wish to take part but cannot get in because it is very nearly full—I appreciate why they cannot be here—that this debate is very over-subscribed. From the very beginning, the time limit will have to be four minutes.

Mike Kane: Not since the Peterloo massacre of 1819 has the state displayed such coercive power over the people of Greater Manchester. Oh, the irony of those talking about one nation Conservatism. It was Mayor Burnham who stood on almost exactly the same spot as Disraeli did in 1872 and spoke for a nation about what you are doing to our cities through this tiered system.
What we have seen this week has been nothing short of chaotic and incompetent. On Monday last week, the Secretary of State for Health told Greater Manchester MPs that we would be going into tier 2 lockdown—we had been there for 12 weeks, since July, without any support. Do you know what? He had unanimity in that room—he had our full support. Do you know what else? That night, The Times leaked that we were going into tier 3. That was leaked to the national press. Seven days of negotiation follows—we are just seven days older—and, to make it worse, The Guardian then leaked that we were running out of intensive care unit capacity. What the Government have forgotten is that the former Chancellor, the former right hon. Member for Tatton, gave us devolved function over some of our NHS services, so we know exactly what is going on in the hospitals. I am looking up at the Press Gallery—the Manchester Guardian should have known better than to be leaking against the city where it was founded after the massacre. This makes us so angry, up in the north.
The Government came to power on the promise of levelling up; those watching from Greater Manchester today will be reflecting on the emptiness of that promise. Tier 3 restrictions will hasten a tsunami of mental health problems already being reported to me by local general practitioners. Along with protecting people’s incomes, the Government need to prevent a mental health crisis.
We in this place are asking so much of the British people, who have gone through so much for us. The coronavirus has them at their wits’ end. Another local Wythenshawe hero from my constituency, Marcus Rashford, will be the subject of the next debate in this House. We are going to heap poverty upon the poverty of the people who go into tier 3 restrictions. The Prime Minister does not know how an area gets out of tier 3 restrictions —he did not know the answer today when challenged by the Leader of the Opposition. Not only will we face further poverty in areas that go into tier 3 restrictions, but we are now cutting off the food supply of the youngest people. Marcus Rashford is teaching the Prime Minister a thing or two about how to bring people along when tackling such an important issue.
This week, the city of Manchester has had a 17% reduction in reported coronavirus cases. The conurbation as a whole has flattened off, yet we have been in these measures for 12 weeks—since July—and now the Government want to shut us down altogether for the next 28 days, with no end in sight.
When I was a young councillor in the early ’90s, Manchester was a dying industrial mill town, after over a decade of Thatcherism. We have pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps to regenerate our airport and our city and to bring back the jobs that we lost in the lost ’80s. We are now an international cosmopolitan city, and you are drawing that away from us. You are pulling the rug from under our feet by making our citizens materially worse off. This has to stop.

James Grundy: First, since so many colleagues wish to speak on this subject and the time available is so limited, I hope the House will understand if I do not take interventions. Secondly, I declare an interest as a sitting member of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council since it has been a party to the negotiations regarding Greater Manchester moving to tier 3 yesterday.
I regret deeply the fact that negotiations collapsed yesterday in Greater Manchester, but it is imperative that negotiations continue even if one of the local leaders has left the negotiating table. I am glad to hear that the Government share this view and that negotiations are ongoing with other local leaders. My understanding is that, as well as the base grant of £22 million, the additional £60 million is still on the table for a total settlement of £82 million. I hope the Minister and other right hon. Friends will meet me, other Greater Manchester MPs and council leaders to achieve a settlement as soon as possible, given the urgency of the situation.
Concerns very much remain about support for those on the minimum wage and the self-employed. I know the Minister referred to this, but I do hope a mechanism can be found so that we can address this. I am keen to see those concerns resolved. I am also keen to keep sectors open that might consist of only a single business in my constituency—such as the Treetops soft play facility in Golborne or BJ’s Bingo hall in Leigh—which I believe may still be able to operate in a covid-secure manner. It is vital that those businesses assessed as safe to remain open are allowed to do so. The fewer businesses that close, the more generous we can be to those that have no choice but to close. I would refer to the example of how Lancashire successfully negotiated to keep gym facilities open.
Additionally, I would like to ask that the Government offer some hope to my constituents with regard to tier 3. Should infection rates fall by a suitable level after the initial 28-day period has expired, I would ask that the Government consider lifting the tier 3 restrictions.
Finally, we know that a vaccine appears to be on the horizon. I hope the Government will prioritise those areas suffering from the burden of tier 3 restrictions for the roll-out of any such a vaccine so that our lives can, at last, begin to return to normal.

Yvonne Fovargue: Like my hon. Friends, I am deeply disappointed and angry with the Government’s approach to the negotiations, if indeed  they can be called that. Negotiations, I believe, involve listening with time allocated so that all can make their views heard, but this has not been the case with the calls I have been on or the reports I have heard from local leaders. Putting an amount of money on the table and saying “This is what you’re going to get” is not negotiating. What did Ministers expect—that Manchester would say, “Oh, we don’t want quite that much, thank you very much”?
Now we are going to be placed in tier 3, with the Government wanting to divide and rule and to talk to local leaders individually, not through the democratically elected Mayor of Manchester. It is probably worth reminding Conservative Members that it was a Conservative Government who insisted on a Greater Manchester Mayor and that Andy Burnham was overwhelmingly elected to do that role. However, when he does the job he was elected to do—stands up for the residents of Greater Manchester and refuses to allow them to be pushed into poverty—this Government brief against him and want to deal with individual leaders. This divisive strategy should not be allowed to work.
It is far too easy to call the money business support, as if it is given to faceless entities, but it is not. It is for families—the supply chain of people and families behind those businesses—and it is also for community hubs in many cases. In my constituency, sports clubs such as Highfield cricket club and the Ashton Bears are relying on bar sales to continue to provide sporting facilities. Without support, some of these clubs may no longer survive. Equally, of the more than 200 pubs in Wigan, many are wet pubs. They are not bistros and eateries serving food, but they have been an important part of the community for many years. The people who run them are worried about how they will survive another lockdown with no end in sight.
For all the people affected, the furlough payments will change from 80% to 67%. Wigan is a low-wage economy and that is a crushing blow for many people, with Christmas just around the corner. Universal credit is no replacement because of its waiting period and because most families with an average income of £20,000 would see a substantial drop in their household income.
Recovery action for debts, including bailiffs’ actions, restarted at the end of August. Families are faced with having 67% of their income—two thirds—but unfortunately, during winter, bills do not drop by a third; in fact, heating bills go up in that time. Debt charities are already experiencing a spike in calls about council tax repayment and repossessions, and they expect a rise of more than 60% in the current demand. As we move into tier 3, there needs to be a renewed package of protection for people whose income will be hit. I commend the package suggested by Citizens Advice.
I have repeatedly asked for projections of how the measures in each tier would affect the virus and what the economic impact would be. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has given me that and has suggested other ways. He has calculated how it would affect businesses and the people behind them, and how much money they would need, and nowhere have I seen those figures disproved.
Divide and rule cannot be the way forward. To control the virus and support businesses and families, I urge the Minister not to go down the damaging route of setting north against south, region against region, and local authority against local authority.

William Wragg: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). I pass on my condolences to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), whose aunt sadly passed away in the hospital that serves my constituency.
This is my first time participating in an Opposition day debate. I am told that they are good practice, akin to a sixth-form debating society, or else a means to catch the favourable eye of the Government Whips Office with a series of rhetorical flourishes against the Opposition. Indeed, a helpful sheet of interventions is, as ever, provided for members of the young thrusters club, for which I fell short of the membership requirements.
Of course, my perspective is shaped by recent events in Greater Manchester, which have been unfortunate, to say the least. Let me set out my position clearly: I do not support tier 3 measures because of their wider effects. Perversely, the closure of covid-secure premises will make it more likely that people will meet in each other’s homes, where we know there is a far higher rate of transmission.
The isolation and loneliness that people are feeling is palpable. Increasingly, I speak with distressed constituents who are not able to enjoy a reasonable quality of life. There are support bubbles, but many vulnerable people are living in fear, terrified of criminalising themselves inadvertently, simply through usual human interactions.
To the wider point of restrictions on businesses, I am sure I speak for many of them in saying that they would much sooner be open and able to operate in a covid-secure way, given the significant amount of investment that they have made in measures. They want to trade, not be given aid. Too often in the debate so far, it has sounded as if the north is coming with a begging bowl. We are a perspicacious, hard-working people. We want our businesses to operate and provide livelihoods and jobs for others. We do not want to come with a begging bowl.
If it is the case that businesses must close by law, however, it is only right that their local representatives strive for every penny of support from the Government who have mandated their closure. At the same time, I am afraid that it is also right, given the circumstances, that local councils now deal with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government directly to ensure that they have funds to support the businesses and individuals who will be in desperate need.
Of course, I wish that that could have been done differently —and amicably. The House should not underestimate the anger felt by the public at that failure. I do not support Labour’s suggestion of a national lockdown, which makes little sense at all. Despite the theatrics—the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) was perhaps the Henry “Orator” Hunt of our modern- day Peterloo earlier—Manchester is not yet on the brink of a Paris Commune, particularly as its politicians would make a poor cast for “Les Mis”.However, what concerns me most is the coming hardship, the rising unemployment and some people’s despair. Indeed, I cannot help but reflect that the medicine risks being worse than the disease.

Derek Twigg: I am really pleased that the Government have listened to my representations and those of my city region colleagues about reopening  gyms. That is so important to the mental and physical wellbeing of my constituents in Halton. It will also save jobs that would otherwise have been lost.
Despite the business support the Government have already put in place, there are over 2,000 more people unemployed in my constituency than there were in March, and youth unemployment has doubled. Placing Halton in tier 3, which I opposed, has hit the hospitality sector particularly hard, impacting especially badly on low-paid and young people. Even those businesses that have managed to remain open, such as restaurants and pubs that serve food, are struggling. The 10 pm curfew has been damaging and no one supports it. Then there are the restrictions on households meeting, which have also impacted those hospitality businesses that are still open. They have had to cut staff hours and lay staff off. Those businesses also need financial support from the Government.
Tier 3 restrictions will massively impact the supply chain that serves the hospitality industry, with the loss of more jobs. Taxi drivers are also impacted by a loss of income. The Government introduced the tiered approach to restrictions and, as we have seen in Manchester, they will be imposed if local leaders do not agree. Therefore, the Government have a clear moral responsibility to provide funding that properly supports businesses affected by tier 3 restrictions.
I have been contacted by self-employed constituents who have received little or no support, often because they do not work out of a business premises. I want the Minister to listen to some of the ordinary voices of my constituency. This is from a musician and songwriter:
“Since my last gig in February 2020 I have received absolutely NO financial aid from the various schemes put in place by this govt. Although I applied for everything, I and hundreds of thousands like me who have a limited company but no permanent work premises…are unable to access any grants, furlough or indeed support from the various systems put in place.”
This is from a sound engineer:
“I work as a freelance audio engineer and rigger. I have my own Personal Service Company of which I am the only Director and contractor and I am employed on an event by event basis in the live entertainment industry. My skills and services contribute to the creative industries which include live events, TV, film, dance and theatre and which were worth £110bn to the annual economy as evidenced in the Government’s”
own figures. He goes on to say:
“I do not see how I will be able to survive financially.”
This is from a fitness instructor:
“I would be grateful if you could highlight the fact that the majority of fitness instructors, who deliver the group exercise classes, and personal trainers are self employed and fall into the group that are hardest hit in the climate. The governments 3rd stage grant of 20% leaves a massive shortfall for people in this field.”
This is from another type of business—a coach travel business. Its owner says:
“Unfortunately whilst many of the schemes are welcome the coach industry doesn’t seem to have any sector support that it qualifies for despite being an industry hit the hardest. Companies that genuinely need a helping hand and would otherwise be successful are forgotten.”
People live to what they earn. Thousands of my constituents face massive cuts in their income without proper support. I remind the Minister that the package of support that the city region asked for was £709 million.  The funding package given so far has not met the need. The Government need to provide a much more realistic package of funding and support for businesses and jobs in Halton.
I repeat what I said in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago: in order to get us through this unprecedented crisis in modern times, we need everybody to work together. I believe that we need a cross-party covid war Cabinet that at the very least has my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of Opposition in it. Constituents tell me that they want politicians to work together to find a way forward and do the right thing. We need to look again at the shielding policy, given that it is older and the most vulnerable people who are being admitted to hospital, and gain public consent again for the best, most common-sense measures, as well as washing our hands, wearing a mask and keeping a 2-metre distance.
I find it heartbreaking to see constituents who have no money, who are desperate and find it really difficult to pay bills. It really is time for the Government to step up to the mark and provide proper and better help to everybody in my constituency who needs it.

Nicola Richards: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, because it is an important one. It is important that people understand the level of economic support available for their area. More than £200 billion has been put there to protect jobs, incomes and businesses.
The fact that the Opposition never want to talk about the unprecedented package of financial support measures that the Government have already piled into all areas of the country is extremely telling. Perhaps that is because the Government’s record on helping the most vulnerable get through this epidemic is outstanding. When we look at the job retention scheme, the job support scheme, the business grants, VAT deferrals, interest-free loans, help with mortgages and much more, it is difficult to argue that this Government have not economically supported our communities, but I agree that they must continue to do so.
I am pleased that packages of financial support are being drawn up for areas hit by the toughest restrictions. If someone’s business is legally required to shut because of the tier system, it is absolutely right that they should be entitled to financial support. It is interesting to watch the Labour party now attempting to paint itself as being business-friendly. Under the Opposition’s previous leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), they were anything but pro-business: just look at their last manifesto. For them now to claim to be the saviours of business across the country during the epidemic is laughable.
What did the former shadow Home Secretary tell Newsnight about the Leader of the Opposition? He has moved his position on remain. He has flip-flopped on Brexit. He has flip-flopped in his support for businesses and he has flip-flopped on covid. He cannot decide whether he wants a national lockdown or whether he wants to know when lockdowns will end. The only thing he has been consistent in is his ability to use hindsight. This from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who stood at last December’s general election on a specific manifesto commitment to impose the biggest tax hikes on British businesses in living memory.
I want us to be backing businesses in West Bromwich East and across the country—the wealth creators who drive our local economies and deliver jobs and prosperity for people. The covid crisis has threatened all that, but I know that we will bounce back when we level-up communities such as mine, which has been let down by the Labour party. While we do not want people to be relying on the welfare state—we want people in jobs providing for their families—it is precisely because of the generous nature of the increased UC threshold that people have been protected during the pandemic.
I pay tribute to West Bromwich jobcentre, which has done a great job in making sure that all those in West Bromwich East who needed to access UC have been able to do so. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has done a fantastic job in securing that. I have been saying throughout the pandemic that this is the time to pull together and play our part in supporting our neighbours. I am proud that the Chancellor has so far stepped up to the challenge, and I have every faith he will continue to do so.

Imran Hussain: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), although she may have been better spending her time talking about the debate and not historical facts that have no bearing.
While much of this debate has focused on tier 3 restrictions in the light of the Government’s shambolic handling of the deal with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, worryingly little is being said by the Government about support for those regions living under tier 2 restrictions, as Bradford and West Yorkshire currently are. Under those restrictions, our businesses may not have been told to close, but let me be clear that they still face significant downturns in trading, and our hospitality sector in particular is being savaged by those rules that tell us only one household can meet up. Many people are still on furlough in tier 2 areas, as their jobs are not expected to properly return until the country opens back up again. They face the prospect of having to survive the winter on a fraction of their normal wages.
Despite the jobs and incomes that are at risk, the Government are doing nothing for tier 2 regions. Indeed, when I asked the Prime Minister just last week whether he would guarantee that local authorities will receive the support they need to help local businesses and protect the incomes of already low-paid workers, he ducked the question, telling me about funding we already know about, with nothing concrete about support for the weeks ahead.
Between March and September, my constituents saw almost 4,000 more people left unemployed, almost 1,000 of whom are aged 16 to 24, and we already have average wages that are £100 a week lower than the rest of the country. We cannot lose any more jobs or risk a further fall in wages, and the Government must act to protect jobs and incomes, because the job support scheme will not be enough to discourage employers from letting staff go. I therefore urge Ministers to accept calls from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority to give the region what it needs to protect jobs, businesses and communities and to engage constructively with West Yorkshire leaders to that end.
There must be a specific focus on the self-employed, who risk being forgotten, as they very nearly were by Ministers at the start of this crisis. Our taxi drivers,  delivery drivers, tradesmen and others all deserve support, and their loss of business and income is through no fault of their own. However, if the Government force West Yorkshire into tier 3, we need to know now and be prepared. There can be no delay, and Ministers must agree to financial support packages in time. Failing to do so will leave businesses in limbo and those in low-paid employment, working fewer hours, or not working, deeply worried about how they will get by this winter.
Based on our population and the financial packages already secured by Liverpool, South Yorkshire and Lancashire, West Yorkshire will need, as a starting point, £75 million for a population of 2.5 million people if we are placed under tier 3 restrictions. Anything less would be an insult to people living in the north. In conclusion, I and other Labour Members will never stop fighting for our constituents and their jobs, businesses and communities. The Government need to step up and give regions in tiers 2 and 3 the assistance that we desperately need.

Chris Clarkson: The past few weeks have been utterly exhausting, not just for those of us who represent Greater Manchester and local authority leaders but, more importantly, for the people we represent. Areas such as my constituency have lived with restrictions for months, and there is a real sense of never having properly left the lockdown that we all endured at the start of the year. That is why today I can only express my absolute dismay at how things have gone over the past 48 hours.
None of us—I do mean none—wanted to go into tier 3. The Minister will have heard from all 27 Greater Manchester MPs at one point or another, and even the press noted our outbreak of unity. However, as the weeks dragged on and brief and counter-brief ping-ponged their way across social media and the front pages, the likelihood of getting something that works for Greater Manchester became more and more remote. I need only look at my Twitter feed today to see that Andy Burnham, consummate performer that he is, is already rewriting the past few weeks, aided by the breathless adulation of the commentariat. The important message behind all this, however, is that 2.8 million people are now in desperate need of answers.
I watched yesterday’s press conference as the Mayor donned his carefully confected outrage and gave an encore performance of his old refrain, “Nothing to do with me.” We should let local leaders, with the support of Greater Manchester’s MPs, talk to the Government about how we will be supported over the next 28 days and beyond. The people I represent are being asked to face the toughest restrictions of their lives and livelihoods since March, and I am genuinely worried—I am sure that colleagues are, too—about the future of the people and businesses in the communities we serve. I have asked the Government to ensure that their efforts are redoubled and that any settlement with individual boroughs in Greater Manchester is conducted quickly. Despite our myriad political differences, I know that the leader of Rochdale Borough Council cares deeply for the people of our borough, and I will work with him, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and anyone else who wants to ensure that we have the support we need.
We have been very badly let down. Andy Burnham inserted himself into this process, and at every step of the way, he promoted himself as the leader of Greater Manchester and purported to speak for us all. Some of us—I include myself in this—were willing to give him some latitude. Not unlike the First Minister of Scotland, Mr Burnham has the same sort of reality distortion field, which allows him to shrug off every broken promise and failed initiative and to emerge squeaky clean. In all honesty, who would not want some of that stardust working for them?
I am a pragmatist. I just wanted the support package; I did not care who got credit for it. Unfortunately, the Mayor did. That is why, after a demand of £65 million was made at the negotiating table and the majority of that sum—92%—was offered, Andy got up and walked away from the table, all because he wanted to brag about having got more money than Merseyside or Lancashire. That dogma and demagoguery will cost people dearly.
I am supporter of devolution, which on the whole I think has been a positive force in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but I cannot say the same for the piecemeal and patchy system that we have in England. Mayors have ill-defined and varying powers, which makes them next to impossible to scrutinise or hold to account. What this whole shabby episode has told us should be a salutary lesson for us all. Today’s last minute debate has all the hallmarks of the same opportunism that has done so much damage over the past few days, no doubt with a carefully calculated vote at the end, designed for release on social media afterwards.
I implore Opposition Members to park the opportunism. I know the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) thinks this is a good crisis that the Labour party should exploit, and I know she speaks for a lot of her Front Bench colleagues when she says that. We just need to see it in the support-U-turn-oppose approach that has characterised their hindsight-heavy behaviour. [Interruption.] Excuse me, did the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) just call me scum?

Eleanor Laing: Order. We will not have remarks like that from the Front Bench: not under any circumstances, no matter how heartfelt they might be—not at all.

Angela Rayner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask your guidance on the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) saying things in his speech about Labour Front Benchers that are inaccurate. I ask him to withdraw them.

Eleanor Laing: It is not for the Chair to decide what is accurate or inaccurate. I cannot make such a judgment, but of course I will ask the hon. Gentleman to be reasonable in what he says and to be careful of his remarks. I am sure that if he feels he has said anything that is offensive to the hon. Lady, he will undoubtedly withdraw and apologise immediately.

Chris Clarkson: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should clarify that I asked the hon. Lady whether she called me that. That is what I heard.
I implore Opposition Members to look at the damage that is being done here, to follow the example of Labour leaders in the Liverpool and Sheffield city regions who put the welfare of their constituents first and to see the debacle of Andy Burnham’s failure for the learning experience it should be.

Darren Jones: Madam Deputy Speaker,
“even if it feels like there is no hope, I am telling you that there is, and that the overwhelming might of the British state will be placed at your service.”
Those were the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer only two weeks ago—words that, when reflected in this Government’s actions, show themselves to be vacuous, hollow and plainly empty. Today, millions of people, sitting at home seeing a failing test and trace system and infection rates quickly increasing, are deeply worried. They are worried that, instead of the overwhelming might of the British state being placed at their service as Ministers promised them, they, like the people of Greater Manchester, will instead be on the receiving end of the chaos and incompetence of the Conservative party.
That is why, today, we in the Labour party are calling for a one nation deal that sets out clearly for all how support for businesses and workers will be applied in local lockdowns—a one nation deal that is voted for by this Parliament and that is clear for all of us to see. That is not a big ask and neither is our ask later this afternoon to extend free school meals to the poorest kids in our country. Ministers know that on both those issues their actions today have long-term consequences.
Surely, the Government have learned the lessons from their own failures? The Conservatives’ response to the last recession, to cut investment and to cut public services, not only made our economic recovery longer and slower, but undermined the resilience of our nation to respond to the crisis we now face. Surely, the Government listen to the likes of the World Bank and look to other countries around the world for support, where there is a clear call to invest now to protect our country, our people and our way of life for the future? And, surely, the Government must understand that they are obliged to engage with and listen to regional mayors—regional mayors that they created—as the voice of their communities, when they are being told that people’s livelihoods and the future of their regional economies are on the line?
The Government’s handling of the pandemic is clearly out of control, and they need to get a grip soon. The pragmatic suggestions put forward today by the Labour party provide a way forward. We know that businesses, from advanced manufacturing and food production to the vital everyday businesses on our high streets, are at an increasing loss: despondent at the chaos of the Government’s handling of local lockdowns, frustrated by the Government’s recklessness in their handling of Brexit, and now deeply concerned about the future direction of our country, when, because of the chaos and the incompetence, vitally important decisions keep going unmade.
Lastly, I say with respect to colleagues on the Government Benches that events such as these are the events that people remember. People throughout the country will be asking themselves. “Are the Government, is my  Member of Parliament, on my side—yes or no?” I hope that Members will keep that question in their minds when they vote this evening.

Sara Britcliffe: The attitude that I have just seen in this Chamber is what turned many of my residents against the Labour party. It is unacceptable.
Areas such as Hyndburn and Haslingden have faced more restrictions than many other parts of the country. Since the beginning of this pandemic, I have been on regular calls with members of the Government, local leaders, local public health officials and the chief medical officer. All have had serious concerns about the rise in covid cases, particularly in recent weeks. We have worked proactively with the Government to come to an early agreement on the financial package of support, which will be a lifeline for businesses and people, while doing everything to stop the rise in transmissions, stop our hospitals being overwhelmed and not leave businesses in limbo.
Lancashire came to an agreement and has received an additional £42 million since entering the very high alert level, taking the total to £157 million, including £12 million from the contained outbreak management fund, at a rate of £8 per head, and £30 million in additional business support. I will not allow the narrative to become that Lancashire leaders—across party lines—do not care about their residents as much as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. I am sorry but that is absolutely not the case. I know how hard we have all worked for our businesses and residents.
I understand that the Mayor of Greater Manchester received 92% of what he was asking for in the negotiations and walked away from the deal on the basis of around £5 million. Given all the support that they have received already, Manchester’s councils could very easily have solved the problem and used their reserves if it was really about supporting businesses. Reserves are there for a rainy day and if this is not a rainy day, I do not know what is. Even authorities such as Hyndburn Borough Council could have pulled out £5 million if it was to support businesses. That is a small local authority, but it would have done that to protect our local hospitals.
This has always been about saving lives and protecting the NHS. Lancashire put its residents and the NHS first, with staff on the wards, and made sure that there was support for businesses. Given that my local hospital has now stood up five covid wards for patients and the staff are reporting that they are exhausted, if needed I would use my reserves, take the offer on the table and then continue the negotiations. People seem to forget about the Government’s announcement of the extra £1 billion for local authorities, which will be un-ring-fenced funding so that local authorities can decide where they use the support. That approach is welcomed by my local councils and it is important to remember that.
I am sorry, but doctors and nurses would never forgive us for standing back and leaving it for a week given that the virus spreads rapidly. The offer made was fair and was acceptable to Liverpool and Lancashire. These are hard decisions, but at the end of the day Manchester’s lives are not worth a penny more than Lancashire’s lives, which is what the Mayor of Greater Manchester is currently saying. We do not agree in Lancashire and we will stand up for the people of Lancashire in this Chamber. We do not agree with what is going on.

Eleanor Laing: After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes.

Clive Betts: As I have already said, I welcome the extra money for track and trace; that should have happened a long time ago. Directors of public health are the professionals—not Serco—and if we had given them the responsibility a long time ago, virus infection levels would not be as high as they are today.
Let us be clear: there have not been local negotiations; there have been discussions with local leaders about how much the Government are going to give them from a standard package, which is the same in every area. The Government have not denied that that is what has happened; it is the reality. If the standard package was sufficient to provide the help that businesses and local people need, I would welcome it wholeheartedly, but it is not.
Many businesses that are partly affected—such as the breweries mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the coach companies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg)—are not going to get help at all. They are going to struggle and they may have to close. If they close but are not forced to close by Government diktat, then of course help would not be forthcoming. People who are made unemployed will not get the same help that they did under the furlough scheme. How can they manage? It is a simple question, and the answer, of course, is that they cannot manage.
We know that the number of people going into isolation who should be isolating is not nearly sufficient, and the reason is that many families simply cannot afford two weeks without any income. For heaven’s sake, extend the scheme beyond the £500 for the poorest families to those who are on average or below average incomes to encourage them to isolate when necessary, knowing that they do not have to make a choice between putting food on their family’s table and paying their rent, and going into isolation. No family should have to make that choice.
Let me turn to the travel restrictions. What we have been told this morning about going into tier 3 is that my constituents cannot go on holiday in the United Kingdom. But they can go on holiday abroad to any country that will have them. What does that say about helping the UK tourism industry? It is exactly the opposite of what Government were saying to people only a few weeks ago: “Go on holiday in the UK, not abroad.” Can the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) confirm whether that is the case? The Health Minister this morning confirmed that it was.
Can the Minister also explain what will happen to a constituent of mine who emailed me? They said, “I am already on holiday in the UK. Do I have to come back, because I am not supposed to stay in another part of the United Kingdom once the tier 3 restrictions come in?” Nobody could give me any guidance this morning. This plan is half-baked and half thought-through. Other constituents of mine can walk to the pub in north-east Derbyshire, which will be in tier 2. The pubs will be open there and my constituents can go for a drink in  them. They cannot go for a drink in my constituency, without a substantial meal. The Government are giving advice, but they are not actually enforcing it. What is going to happen in such cases?
The most stupid thing of all—I know that the Minister will not have an answer to this because nobody could give me an answer on the Zoom call this morning; they tried to, but it was a piece of nonsense—is that in my constituency during the last lockdown, people got great enjoyment from walking in the Moss valley, where the footpaths run between Sheffield and Derbyshire. When people walk on those footpaths, they walk between a tier 3 area and a tier 2 area, but the Government advice says that they are not supposed to leave a tier 3 area. I asked this morning whether people should stop at the boundary on those footpaths, and then turn around and come back. It is an unmarked boundary, so people would have to look at an Ordnance Survey map to find its location. I was told that that is the Government guidance now—that is, if someone is walking on a rural footpath, with no chance of giving covid to anyone, they should stop at that imaginary boundary, turn around and come back. I am sorry, but it is that sort of stupid, simplistic advice that brings the whole system into disrepute.
Finally, will the Government please tell people the measures by which tier 3 will end? No one has told us yet.

Stuart Anderson: As a country, we are in a situation that we do not want to be in, and the decisions that we make in this House will determine not only how we come out of covid-19, but what our country is going to look like for generations to come. It is on that note that I want to talk about one of the most deprived areas in my constituency, Whitmore Reans.
I love Whitmore Reans and the people there love it too. It has a diverse community and I always enjoy spending time there. My family and I have always been welcome and we have received the greatest of welcomes from the imam and shafiq at Bilal mosque. I enjoy many different culinary delights in the area, such as Kurdish cuisine, Turkish kebabs or the great British fish and chips—although I do have to run a few extra miles the next day.
People who live in Whitmore Reans have one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the region and live in one of the most deprived areas. The area has the highest proportion of children in families receiving low-income benefit anywhere in the city. Whitmore Reans has many multigenerational households which, despite working hard, just have enough to get by. There is no secondary school in the area and no local walk-in medical centres. Fly-tipping is rife and crime rates are high. But people love Whitmore Reans and they are proud of it. They have a great sense of community spirit and are always proud of the multiculturalism and diversity in this area.
It is clear that Whitmore Reans, as well as other places in Wolverhampton, have been left behind for decades. I want to see that change and I will not sit back and ignore the problem. I have pushed for investment in Wolverhampton almost every week since I became an MP.  The Treasury must know me as the death-by-a-thousand-cuts MP, given the amount of times I have lobbied them. Only on Monday we sent the latest request about the support that we need in Wolverhampton. This is a regular occurrence and it will continue. I get it, however, that not all these requests are going to come back with a cheque and that the Treasury will have to make sure that we have a sustainable economic future as a country that is not a bottomless pit.
We do not know for how long we will be fighting this virus. We are in tier 2. With the rate rising, we could end up in tier 3 soon, having these same discussions. We do not know what measures we have to put in place as we move forward. We do not know how long we have got this for. I do not believe that a one-size-fits-all policy is right, and I support the generous economic measures that the Chancellor has provided during these difficult times. To level up, we need to have a sustainable economy that will see the children of Whitmore Reans and the rest of Wolverhampton growing up in a place that they will also love.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The sums requested by Greater Manchester yesterday were a speck compared with the millions given to Serco, G4S, KPMG, Deloitte and other private firms in this pandemic. They were a tiny speck compared with the £745 billion of quantitative easing that was announced in June, supposedly to support our economy.
In Greater Manchester alone, 408,000 people have accessed furlough since its inception, unemployment doubled between March and May, and we saw an increase in universal credit claimants of 76% between March and September. Some 3 million nationally have been excluded from any support so far, from small businesses to freelancers to new starters. Tier 3 brings a very dark winter to them. It brings a dark winter to those forced to close without adequate Government support, and for those not ordered to close the Chancellor’s scheme is not enough to support them in the face of the wider economic impact. Indeed, businesses in my constituency were already having to lay off staff, and that was under tier 2, so at the very least, the Government must agree to support the motion set out today. Not only that: they must also offer a package of support for the 3 million excluded from support so far.
The Government ask my constituents to give up their civil liberties and livelihoods, but they refuse to stand beside them with the support they need, all for a plan that even the Government scientists do not believe will work. To most, this does not appear to be an exercise in infection control. It appears to be an exercise in keeping the north and other tier 3 areas away from the rest of the country to engage in our own version of “The Hunger Games”, where only the fittest and wealthiest will survive.

Alexander Stafford: Will the hon. Member give way?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: No, I will not.
I say to the Minister: is it not the truth that in Greater Manchester we have been in tier 2 for months, but we have seen an increase, not a decrease, in the infection rate? Is it not the truth that the Government’s own chief  medical officer said that he was “not confident”—neither was anyone else, for that matter—that tier 3 would actually work? And is it not the truth that the Government continue to ignore many of its own SAGE scientists who have advised that an immediate, short, national circuit breaker is the only way truly to bring infection rates down?
Abraham Lincoln once said:
“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts”.
The fact is that Government negotiations yesterday were little more than an attempt to make local authorities complicit in the Government’s mismanagement of this crisis. The people deserve better. They deserve support, and they deserve the truth.

Simon Fell: Coronavirus has presented a huge national challenge rarely seen at this scale outside a time of war. In tackling it, we have been forced to make accommodations that sit uncomfortably with us all. Those accommodations and compromises form part of a delicate compact that we have with the British people: that they surrender some of their civil liberties and freedoms, and in return, we keep them safe. It is a simple transaction, and it is a pure one. That bond of trust is delicate, though, and once that trust is broken, it is hard to find again. I fear that we stand on the precipice, with that bond at risk of permanent damage or even fracture.
The first national lockdown was a response to an escalating pandemic of which we knew little, except that if it went unchecked, it would be deadly in more ways than one—to lives, to the capacity of the NHS to extend its care, and to our economy and our ability to prevent people from falling into poverty. It is right to recognise that as the nature of the pandemic has changed, so should our response. The virus is spreading at different rates through our countries and communities, so a regional and local approach is needed in terms of both restrictions and an economic response. Understandably, the public have coronavirus fatigue. The tone of my mailbag has changed. People were once willing to put their faith and effort into the national sacrifice and, as the weather turns, a tone of reticence is setting in. We need to turn the tide on that.
The Government’s response to this crisis has been rooted in fairness. Over £200 billion has been made available in one of the most comprehensive economic responses in the world, protecting jobs, incomes and businesses through this pandemic. That has been provided on the principle that, just as the virus does not discriminate, nor should our resolve or response to it.
But as we move to a local approach, I fear that our core principle of fairness is at risk. Recent events risk injecting politics and division into the one part of our lives where we need it least right now. That not only threatens the compact we have with the British people but delays crucial action to protect the public. It has created an outpouring of anger and envy. Politics has its place, and I have no right at all to pontificate about an elected representative standing up for their community, but these discussions should take place with an eye to the impact they have on the national and local resolve to work as one to bear down on this virus. It is for both sides—Government and local leaders—to do that.
As local leaders elsewhere have shown, constructive talks can yield results for their areas, supporting the local economy and providing surge funding for local track and trace. While I continue to make representations to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that more can be done for hospitality and events venues in places such as Barrow, I firmly believe that these talks should take place in a spirit of co-operation rather than opposition. We have an opportunity to restore trust and regain the momentum behind this collective effort, but as the pandemic has evolved, so has our economic response to it. We must remember that our words and actions resonate far beyond this place, and if we are to retain that bond of trust with the public, we must find common ground once again.

Christine Jardine: I am sure I am not the only person in the House who is suffering from an overwhelming and frustrating sense of déjà vu. Often in this crisis, I feel like a parent dealing with a petulant teenager—it does not matter how often we say it, because even though they know in their heart of hearts that their parents are right, they do not want to admit it. Like that parent of a petulant teenager, the nagging from Opposition Members is because we care. We care about the outcome, and we care about people who are suffering across this country.
We care about businesses such as the long-established recruitment firm in my constituency that came to me because it did not qualify for support, or the company I spoke to this morning that was successful until March and now has to make people redundant—something that would have been unthinkable a year ago. This evening, I will be talking to constituents about how we can save Murrayfield ice rink, one of not only Edinburgh’s but Scotland’s most loved and used facilities. These might all be statistics to the Government; I hope they are not. But behind every single one of these cases are people—employees who are suffering and many self-employed people who have had no income for months.
Minister, this Government have to admit it, and admit it soon: what we saw yesterday in Greater Manchester is not an isolated case. People up and down this country feel abandoned and feel that the Government are not doing enough for them. They want to know why we are letting them down. They have contributed to the economy for years, and now they need something back—where is it? They face unprecedented hardship. That will only continue, and for some it will get worse.
It is an accepted fact in this country, repeated by various Conservative Governments over the years, that small businesses, entrepreneurs and innovators are the backbone of the British economy. Minister, that back is breaking, and it needs this Government’s help. We need them to bring back the original job retention scheme after the end of this month and to keep it going until June next year; to extend the business rates holiday to the end of 2021 to protect the retail, hospitality, leisure and childcare sectors; and to bring in those excluded groups who have nothing.
Einstein said that to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result is madness. Well, Minister, I am prepared to indulge in that madness in the hope, which I hope is not a vain one, that the Government will eventually listen to the many voices in this country  saying that we need to keep furlough—full furlough, the job retention scheme. We need to support more people. We need our economy to survive this, because without it we are all in deep, deep trouble.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady’s rhetoric, but three times during her speech she addressed the Minister. Yes, I see she gets the point. I make the point so that Members who are new to the House will not think she is correct, and I let her do it three times. The hon. Lady clearly knows, and I hope others will take note, that she should address the Chair.

Antony Higginbotham: Lancashire has been hit incredibly hard by covid-19, and Burnley particularly so. Our case rate is among the highest in Lancashire and our economy is hurting, but we are also a hardy bunch. We have a “just get on with it” attitude, and that means we find industrial solutions for the future, we back our local businesses and we will come through this stronger than ever. In that vein, I thank local leaders from the county council and district councils for all their work to reach an agreement with the Government that sees our businesses and our people protected.
Today’s debate has been framed as though support is non-existent, but at every stage of this pandemic the Government have provided whatever support has been necessary. That is not because of those playing party politics; it is because of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who have fought for their constituents, working with the Chancellor and the whole Government.
I understand why the Opposition are trying to frame this debate as though they are standing up for left-behind communities, but let me remind them that it is they who left them behind. Year after year, decade after decade, they ignored the north of England, both in government and in opposition. That is why I sit here, because I promised never again to allow Burnley and Padiham, Worsthorne and Cliviger or Hapton and Dunnockshaw to languish as they allowed. I promised to level up, and that is exactly what I remain focused on.
Yes, that includes managing the covid-19 outbreak. I will never stop lobbying the Government, publicly and privately, to ensure that they understand my local economy and understand the support we need, particularly when their interventions hurt us. However, I remain convinced, just as I did at the start of this crisis, that we are doing the right thing.
Hundreds of millions of pounds have gone into Lancashire to support our businesses and our people. In the past week alone, £42 million has gone into the county to support businesses and people. That will support the landlord and landlady of the village pub and the entrepreneur who started their new business only a matter of weeks ago. There is another £12 million to support the public health response.
I say to all the businesses in Burnley that I am here to lobby for you, and I say to the Government that the support we have in place is welcome and essential, but I will never stop lobbying on behalf of the businesses that create the jobs on which local residents in Burnley rely.

Jeff Smith: The Government are fooling nobody. They always try to blame someone else when they walk away from a negotiation, not taking any responsibility for their failure.
Greater Manchester’s leaders produced a carefully costed plan to deliver what our region needs to support our businesses and our people, and that was £90 million. When the Government refused, our ask was reduced to £75 million and then further to £65 million, before the Government walked away from the negotiation. It is shameful for Tory MPs from Greater Manchester to blame our Mayor and our local leaders for trying to protect our economy and our residents. Our local councils cannot do this on their own. They are already on their knees because of the extra costs and the drop in revenues as a result of this crisis.
We need help, but the rationale for the Government’s offer of help has been hard to fathom. There is no consultation, and no transparency on how it has been arrived at. As far as we can see, it appears to involve a per capita figure for business support. How can that make sense when business density and business needs are different for different areas? So I ask the Minister: why can we not have a more sophisticated formula? That is perfectly possible, and it could take into account previous needs. Just as an example, when the small business grant scheme was opened, there were 22,000 applications in the Liverpool city region, 31,000 applications in Lancashire and 47,000 applications in Greater Manchester. The needs are different in different regions.
A formula could also take into account the size of our economy and the extent to which it supports the wider region, as Greater Manchester does. We could take into account the number of low-paid workers in a region, to come up with a formula and a figure that truly takes need into account. If support is per capita based on population, what happens when a rural area with residential areas but little business or industry goes into tier 3? What would happen if an area such as Bournemouth and Poole, with a high retired population, went into tier 3 ? Would it get the same business support? That would make no sense, and it would be the opposite of levelling up.

Sam Tarry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jeff Smith: I will take a brief intervention, but I will try not to take the extra time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Sam Tarry: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not about a north-south or a Manchester-London divide? Last night, Londoners were told they must accept fare rises way above inflation, a forced council tax hike and, on top of that, even more punitive measures including taking control of the Greater London Authority out of the hands of the Mayor of London. Surely this is about crushing devolution. Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Mayor of London should not be punished for standing shoulder to shoulder with our friends in the north?

Jeff Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about individuals standing up for their area. The Mayor of London is doing so, and the Mayor of Greater Manchester is doing so as well.
We keep being told that the Government say the £60 million is still on the table for Greater Manchester, but now it seems to be on the table only for individual councils unless our Mayor will simply accept the Government’s take-it-or-leave-it offer. It is clear from the Secretary of State’s answers in the Chamber last night that the Government now want to deal only with individual councils. Is it not true that the Government’s policy towards Greater Manchester is no longer “We’re all in this together” but divide and rule? That is not the way a responsible Government should be behaving in a time of crisis.

Alexander Stafford: Obviously, I rise today with the news that South Yorkshire, of which Rother Valley is a key part, has now entered into tier 3. This is not a decision that any of us wants and it is not something that any of us thought was going to happen, but in order to save lives, this is what we have had to do. Saving lives is what this debate is all about, and we should not get away from that fact. I am grateful for the cross-party work that we have done across South Yorkshire, and I want to thank especially my fellow Rotherham area MPs, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), and the council leader, Chris Reed, for working together with the Mayor to provide cross-party support. That is how we got £41 million extra invested in our area to protect jobs and to protect lives. Throughout our negotiations, one thing we have never done is put the lives of our residents at risk, because we understand that getting the virus under control is what is important.
That is not what has been going on in Manchester, which is grandstanding. I honestly think that is a disgrace. The Mayor of Manchester is playing fast and loose with people’s lives when it comes to this virus. With every day, and every minute, that goes past without Manchester going into a proper lockdown, more people will get infected and more people may ultimately suffer the worst fate ever. It is a disgrace that Manchester is being sold out by its so-called political leadership, which is not taking the hard decision to try to save lives.
This Government are trying to save lives. If Lancashire can work together to save lives, if Liverpool can work together to save lives and if South Yorkshire can work together to save lives, why cannot Manchester work together? Why are we doing this? Why do we see in the news that the Mayor of Manchester claims that he was only told about the deal halfway through a phone interview, when in fact he was told before? That is just grandstanding. It is playing politics with people’s lives and it is a disgrace that should shame everyone. We should not be playing politics with people’s lives.
We should be helping businesses. Basically, businesses need support. Like all Members, I have great concerns about the businesses in my constituency, whether it is the pubs, the restaurants or the coach services. There are concerns, but ultimately we must work together to save lives. Nobody benefits from the Mayor of Manchester playing politics with people’s lives, and that is what it is. By not implementing procedures to save lives, the virus will run amok, and nothing—nothing; no faux negotiations—can obscure the fact that lives are being put at risk by a Mayor of Manchester who clearly wants to make a political point rather than look after his people.
I for one in South Yorkshire will never stand by and put my residents’ lives and health at risk for anything. Regardless of parties or anything else, lives must come first. I am pleased that so many people across the House have done that; it is a shame that it is not the case in Manchester.

Shabana Mahmood: I have to say, I find the approach that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) has taken—and, indeed, that the whole Government are taking to the virus—and the remarks that he has just made so profoundly depressing. In case he or anybody else has not got the memo, the virus has already started to run amok in our country. The Government have already lost control of this virus. At a time when we all need to pull together, in the context of a global emergency, the Government are pursuing rhetoric and a narrative that is all about dividing communities from one another and sowing division, as if our country needs any more division after the last few years—we have already had quite enough of that. Why pit mayor against mayor? Why pit region against region?
The virus does not care for geographical boundaries or which local or national official is ultimately responsible for any of our policies. The virus is running wild through our country. We all need to pull together, and the Government therefore need to behave as the Government of a United Kingdom and pursue a national strategy that is comprehensible and understandable to the vast majority of us—one that is rational and does not mean careering from one type of measure to another, doing 180° turns from one day to the next. We need some rationality and a clear national strategy from the Government.
The virus has shown the absolute mess of English devolution under this Government, because it is not true devolution; it is just devolution of blame and responsibility for decisions that local people are not involved in. The Government are going to have to change course, because everything that we know about strategies that work to get the virus under control shows that we need local expertise and locally led decision making.
We also need a package of support that can protect jobs and businesses. Nothing that the Government have done since the tiers were introduced, particularly in areas such as mine, which is under tier 2 restrictions, will go far enough to protect jobs, livelihoods and businesses, which will be crucial to our economic recovery when we are through the worst of the crisis. The cost of borrowing is low at this point. I say to all those who behave as though this one change in the measures to support businesses and jobs will somehow destroy our economy: we are in unprecedented times. The cost of borrowing is low, and we should do what other nations are doing. We should provide as much support as necessary to save as many jobs and businesses as possible, so that there is a viable economy for us to regrow once we are back out of this crisis.
Finally, I urge the Minister to deal with the fact that areas in tier 2, such as Birmingham, are in the worst of all worlds, because their business base has been decimated by public health measures, but businesses are not forced to close, so they do not get any support. It is nonsensical that we should end up wishing we were in tier 3 just to get some support. The Government must change course.

Gary Sambrook: Unfortunately, during today’s debate and over the last couple of weeks, we have seen Opposition Members trying to have it both ways. This is a moment of national crisis, yet we have seen no attempt at being constructive and no positive ideas at all. This Government have delivered a package of £200 billion for this country, which must be seen in an international context, when we look at some of the particular measures that the Government have introduced to protect jobs and livelihoods across the country. We have seen £40 billion for furlough and 9.6 million jobs protected, over 11,000 of which were in my Birmingham, Northfield constituency. We have seen the new job support scheme and £9 billion of extra money for welfare. We have seen VAT cuts for hospitality and grants and loans for businesses across the country, which have enabled jobs and businesses to succeed, looking after people.
What have we got from the Opposition? They are complaining about the impact of these restrictions on businesses, but what would they do instead? They would close them all, causing untold misery to many millions of people across this country in terms of jobs. Would it work? They do not know. They would have circuit breaker after circuit breaker, or fire break after fire break—call it what you like; it is a lockdown—and have them multiple times. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) pointed out, the very definition of madness, as Einstein said, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
The Opposition ask for more money for local government. Well, we have seen the consequences of that in my Birmingham, Northfield constituency. For years, the council has attempted to put a bus lane down Bristol Road South, and it has used covid response money in order to put that bus lane there because it did not have the guts to do the consultation in the first place. Instead of talking to people about what response to covid they wanted, it imposed it overnight. That is why, working with my local councillors, we have collected a petition of over 2,700 names against this ludicrous idea, which was all in the name of protecting the city against covid.
What we have seen throughout this debate is opportunism and no constructive ideas. There is no perfect response to the virus. This is not about the UK acting on its own against it; it is about the whole world’s response. Everybody is learning as we go along. I have confidence that this Government are listening and, most importantly, reacting.

Ian Byrne: My region is now under tier 3 measures, meaning that many of the industries my city relies on are facing devastation for the second time this year. The Government have suggested that the 67% job support scheme will be topped up to 80% by universal credit, but we all know that delays in receiving universal credit are one of the primary reasons for referrals to food banks. It is simply not acceptable to expect people to be able to make ends meet with so little support.
I say this speaking from my own personal experience as someone who used to be a hackney cab driver in  Liverpool and is extremely proud of that fact. It absolutely breaks my heart to speak to my former colleagues about the dire situation they now find themselves in. Cab drivers, like the musicians, artists, DJs, bar workers and kitchen staff, are the beating heart of my city, and all should be treated as the hugely important jobs they are now and will be in future. They are viable. They must be supported to rebuild our communities once we get through this. If not, they are thrown under the proverbial bus. It feels like a Tory Government once more, going back to the ’80s—washing their hands of the working class when we need that support now more than ever.
I genuinely fear that the Chancellor, widely regarded as one of the richest men in Parliament, has absolutely no idea of just what he is asking of people and just what he is putting our communities through. Can he really appreciate what it means to live off £5.76 an hour? If he had walked in their shoes, maybe the strategy he is following would be different. In fact, I invite him to come to Liverpool—come to the taxi ranks and speak to the scouse cabbies—and maybe the strategy will change, because he will be given some pointers on what is required to save these industries from decimation.
The virus was nobody’s fault, so our communities should not be punished by this Government. We need to show all the communities throughout our regions that they are valued. The Chancellor has it in his power to provide the economic support that tier 3 areas like Liverpool and others mentioned today need. I urge him to implement the measures in the motion, increase the job support scheme to at least 80%, and provide fair funding for the regions and communities we all serve.

Sarah Dines: I speak to a lot of people across the four nations of this great country, and in Derbyshire, too, and their overwhelming view is that this Government are being fair. The Government have outlined a clear and fair national criteria for supporting people under tier 3 restrictions. That comes on top of the huge national support that has historically been offered to local authorities, businesses and individuals over the past few months.
The Government are protecting 80% of the salaries of those on lower incomes through the job retention scheme and universal credit contributions, which I know is more generous than that offered by many countries in the world. In particular, it is better than that offered in France, Germany and Spain.
The long-term battle here is to defeat and manage the virus and to promote economic recovery. It is only with prosperity that we can have freedom and rights for everybody. The virus’s transmission must be thwarted, so I welcome the Government’s focus on track and trace. On money, the Government are fundamentally fair. We are not going back to the times of trade union discussions when people can shout and scream to get what they can out of the Government. This Government are consistent and fair.
I was interested to hear the Prime Minister confirm today that Manchester will be getting £60 million overall in the same fair way as other regions, so all the shouting and screaming of the petulant Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, is frankly ridiculous. The single most important way the Government can support communities is to carry on with track and trace. The delivery of more  than 300,000 tests a day facilitates progress in this area to stop transmission rates in the worst-affected areas. For all their rhetoric, this achievement would have proved impossible under the Opposition, because of their refusal to support the Government’s national approach on testing, which is Europe-leading. They have an ideological fear of private enterprise and would not have been able to deliver any of this. Those people I speak to across this great nation of ours are grateful to Boris and to Rishi—

Nigel Evans: Order. We do not refer to Members of Parliament by their Christian or other names.

Sarah Dines: I mean the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I was also surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) say that the track and trace system had collapsed—she clearly reads a different dictionary from me. I was thinking back to those times when I was a child and the trade unions thought that they ran the country. Well, similarly, Andy Burnham may run his city, but we need fairer, more moderate tones in discussions as to how to get through this crisis.
In conclusion, this is not too good a crisis to go to waste. We will work together and receive—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Tracy Brabin: I will, if I may, take a moment to add my condolences to my good friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and her family at the loss of her aunt.
It has been a tumultuous time for communities in the north and in West Yorkshire. We know the sacrifices that people have made, losing loved ones, jobs, homes and futures. As a proud Yorkshire woman, I know that we have grit, determination and a sense of community, and I know that we will get through this. I make this request of the Minister: if West Yorkshire is placed under the same restrictions as Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire, will the Government not abandon my community, my people, with the same disregard for the impact that it will have on the poorest as they have in Greater Manchester? They cannot expect a family living on £300 a week to now be living on £200 a week and not go into poverty. They cannot expect those on the minimum wage now to get two thirds of those wages and not to be living in poverty. We know that hundreds of thousands of people across this community and across the country do not even have £100 of savings.
Added to that is the sheer arrogance of the Government in the way that they have dealt with the leadership of Greater Manchester, excluding MPs from briefings, trying to set one elected Mayor against another, leaving the people of Greater Manchester anxious and concerned about how they will pay their bills. They have pitted one community against another, young against old, vulnerable against healthy, rich against poor, and city against town. I wish to put it on the record that I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Mayor of Greater Manchester and all that he is doing, working with others to get the support of his community so that they have enough to live on.
Let us not forget landlords and utility companies: they will not be interested in the argument that a worker is now getting only two thirds of their current income. This Government are happy to allocate billions for botched schemes, but it is begging bowls for the rest of us. We know that there was £108 million for private companies to make PPE they had never made before, and £12 billion for track and trace that was a complete shambles, yet £5 million was just a step too far to protect the livelihoods of millions of citizens across Greater Manchester—so many people paying an unnecessarily high price for Government chaos.
Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will make a great fanfare of speaking about the northern powerhouse, when for so many of the people I represent it is more like the northern poorhouse. It is not just Labour leaders who are exasperated at the Prime Minister’s disregard for the people of the north, but former Tory Minister Lord O’Neill, writing in the Yorkshire Post today, and he is right. With over 40 leaders across the north standing alongside Greater Manchester leaders, I add my voice to their ask of Parliament to enable us to have a vote on the motion.

Nigel Evans: The wind-ups will begin sharp at one minute to four.

Andy Carter: Much of the discussion in the past week has centred around support for packages in Greater Manchester, in Lancashire and in the wider Merseyside region—three areas that border my constituency. We sit, in Warrington South, at a tipping point, but still in tier 2.
It is a great shame that the political theatrics from the Mayor of Greater Manchester in the past 24 hours have been allowed to dominate the airwaves. This is not a north-south debate. All the efforts of every Member of the House should be focused on defeating the virus and protecting livelihoods, and I agree with my neighbour, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who said that now is the time to pull together.
Today’s debate is about economic support packages for areas with local restrictions. Given that Warrington remains an area with tier 2 restrictions, I want to highlight some of the challenges that businesses in my constituency are telling me about, while recognising some of the fantastic steps that are already being taken by the Government.
The approach that, wherever you live, be it in the north-west or the south-east, you get the same support, is absolutely the right one nation approach to take. In this country we have seen the most comprehensive economic response in the world, backed by over £200 billion to protect jobs, incomes and businesses throughout and beyond the pandemic. As the pandemic evolves, so too must our policies, and I welcome steps to support businesses forced to close due to national or local restrictions, whereby they will now receive £3,000 a month. We are also providing a £500 payment to support those on low incomes who have been asked to self-isolate.
If I may, I want to give some feedback to the Minister from hospitality businesses in my constituency in tier 2, where a ban on mixing socially with friends in a pub is combined with a 10 pm closing time. The impact has  been far greater than many may have anticipated. Daniel Benson from the Hop Co bar in Warrington wrote to me, having spent thousands on creating a covid-safe environment. He now cannot operate sustainably due to the new restrictions. I have also heard from Kerry Shadwell, landlady at the Red Lion in Stockton Heath, a traditional pub in the heart of the community, with a rateable value slightly over £51,000. They were not eligible for any grants earlier and are now facing more pressures. They have seen their capacity reduce. They had to introduce table service, incurring extra costs. Understandably, they are now asking how they can continue.
Earlier in the year, I argued for sector-specific support. Now is the time for hospitality sectors in particular, in tier 2, to get sector-specific support. I ask the Minister to take the matter back to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Carolyn Harris: Covid restrictions in tiers 2 and 3 have put untold pressure on a wide range of businesses, and while some have been provided for, many have not. Our hospitality industry has taken a huge hit, but what about its supply chains? Food and drink wholesalers have seen a 70% reduction in sales, and with no financial support, many are on the brink of collapse. But it is not just hospitality venues that they serve but our schools, hospitals, prisons and care homes; and some of that is specialist food, which cannot be bought in a supermarket.
Just this weekend, I read that a Treasury spokesman had said that support for the hospitality sector “and its wider chain” was available, so I spoke to the supply sector, and they said that they certainly had not had support. Bidfood, based in my constituency, had seen an almost 50% downturn in sales, and consequently had to make redundancies. They tell me that the food supply industry has not yet been eligible for any Government financial support, despite what the Treasury says. Wholesalers such as Bidfood and Castell Howell, based in Llanelli, are fantastic supporters of community campaigns. They have helped me with my summer lunch club, the Swansea Together coronavirus response and the “Everyone Deserves a Christmas” campaign. But now they need support to help them to survive.
Food and drink wholesalers desperately need the furlough scheme to be extended, prolonged business rates relief and discretionary grants to enable them to survive the crisis. They do not know how long the uncertain times will last—we do not know and the Prime Minister and his Government do not know. But what we do know is that these areas facing additional restrictions need additional support, and they need it now.
Too many times during this pandemic, measures have been put in place too late because of this Government’s failure to be decisive. The First Minister in Wales has taken the decision to introduce a fire-break lockdown, and I have no doubt that many businesses across Wales will be disappointed to be closing their doors again. But they will understand that this has to be done. We must ensure that they get the financial support to see them through this time.
This lockdown is falling between two different Government schemes. The First Minister asked the Treasury to bring forward the job support scheme and to work with the Welsh Government—they even offered financial support to make sure that businesses in Wales would be helped. The Prime Minister constantly talks about putting his arm around the nation. Well, now is his opportunity to do that: embrace the First Minister’s suggestion and make sure that businesses in Wales can survive this pandemic and this lockdown.

Simon Baynes: Since March, the UK Government have provided unprecedented support to Wales, including £4.4 billion in financial support to the Welsh Government and the protection of 400,000 jobs through the furlough scheme. In my constituency of Clwyd South, many people, businesses and organisations have asked me to thank the Chancellor for providing such widespread and well targeted support.
At the heart of the debate today is the issue of responsibility for economic support when areas of the UK face additional restrictions. Implicit within it is the understanding by all parties that lockdown does have an impact on businesses and jobs, even with the most generous package of support. We were therefore surprised to learn last weekend via a leaked letter that the Welsh Government were intending to lock down all of Wales for two and a half weeks from Friday, given that significant parts of the country have low infection rates.
Many people across Wales feel that the Welsh Government approach should, like the Westminster Government’s, be targeted at the areas of high infection and that the tier system should also be introduced in Wales. The national lockdown in Wales is therefore unnecessarily damaging businesses and jobs, as was implicitly agreed by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). It is harming businesses in areas of low infection, which then puts a huge extra burden on the provision of economic support from the Government.
It is difficult to understand how the Welsh Government have arrived at their decision, but part of the answer lies in their reluctance to co-operate with the UK Government on covid-19 discussions and the fact that they deliberately ignored the reality explained to them by the UK Government: that the new package of financial support could not be delivered until the beginning of November. It is also due to the fact that they have been very slow to publish coronavirus infection rates district by district; such figures were available from Public Health Wales only yesterday, well after the lockdown decision had been made. The other reason is a lack of scrutiny and accountability within the Senedd, where the national lockdown was not even debated before it was announced—a sharp contrast to this House, where the level of scrutiny of ministerial decisions is rightly much higher, as this debate and many others demonstrate.
In conclusion, fair economic support is vital, but it is also closely related to making the right decisions about lockdown given that the broad shoulders of the UK Treasury’s resources are not limitless and that we  need to target financial support, just as we need to target restrictions on those areas with the highest rates of infection.

Toby Perkins: It is a huge misfortune that, at the moment the entire world is grappling with this pandemic, the United Kingdom should be stuck with this Government—probably the most incompetent Government that there has ever been—at a moment when never more has there been a need for a strong and reliable Government. When the whole country is looking to the Government for leadership, for them to instead be involved in the dreadful spectacle of politicising and trying to split up areas such as Greater Manchester—trying to get people to work against each other, rather than working together—at a moment like this says everything not only about their competence, but about what motivates them.
The Government are now claiming that they had a formula all along, but that has so transparently been done after the event to justify what they offered to Greater Manchester. Surely a sensible business support formula would work on the basis of the number of workers that an area has, not the number of citizens. The deal that the Greater Manchester Mayor asked for would replace 80% of the income of those workers on low wages put out of work by the Government’s incompetence. It is an area, remember, that has been in tier 2 for months. In Chesterfield, we are just going into tier 2 and we see the appalling consequences it has for our hospitality sector, which is getting no support whatever. All the way through, the Government’s eyes have been on the political win rather than on the best interests of the people they are here to serve.
If the Government had a formula all along, why was Manchester getting only £22 million at 3 o’clock and £60 million again by 7 o’clock? Why is Sheffield city region getting £6 million less in business support than the formula says? Why was the initial offer to Manchester, of £55 million, £3 million less than what the Government now say that formula is? If there is actually a formula, it does not add up. They do not even lie well. The Government are so inept that they cannot even get their story straight when they are screwing people over.
The whole charade would not be so bad if the Government had the slightest compunction about wasting billions of pounds of public money. They are the Government who conspired to deny a cash-strapped council £50 million from Richard Desmond, and who pay consultants £7,000 a day to screw up track and trace, but when it comes to laying people off—because all the Government’s measures so far have failed—the people of Manchester are not even worth £20. What a shabby disgrace!

Nigel Evans: To resume her seat at 3.59, I call Suzanne Webb.

Suzanne Webb: We are having this debate due to the drawn-out actions of others. The Government’s offer to support businesses in Manchester is generous and, importantly, proportionate to the support already given to Liverpool and Lancashire. I am bitterly disappointed that, after long, drawn-out negotiations, the offer of support was rejected. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have a better chance of defeating the virus if we work together. Compare that to what is happening in the west midlands. I am thankful we have  Andy Street as the Mayor of the west midlands, who has already said that he will not accept a public and drawn-out negotiation with the Government. He will not put lives at risk.
Our Mayor’s aim is to agree measures alongside other local leaders on a cross-party basis well in advance of any move to a higher tier, so that we can protect businesses and livelihoods without delay. That is real leadership in the face of the biggest public health crisis we have faced in a generation. When the NHS is at risk, that is when we are at the moment of greatest danger. Those who are not willing to act collectively at the time of our country’s greatest need put the NHS and people’s lives at risk.

Nigel Evans: I apologise to the 38 Members who were not able to be called because of the constraints of time and the large number of Members who wished to participate. I call Anneliese Dodds.

Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to everyone who has participated in this debate. There have been a number of fantastic contributions, particularly from Opposition Members. I am sure there would have been many more if we had had time. Running through all the contributions, including those from the Government Benches, are three questions that the Government seem absolutely determined not to answer. I hope they finally will do so in the next 10 minutes.
The first question is about this phantom framework. It is not Halloween yet, but it feels like we are already there with this phantom framework. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary said there was a framework for support for jobs and businesses in tier 3 areas, and he said that the framework offered £20 per head. If that framework is there, why have the Government not published it? Why will they not put it in front of us? Why will they not write it down anywhere so that we can see it? Why will they not let us vote on it? I know the reason why. They will not do that because they know it has not always been used—I will come back to that point later—but also because they know that it is iniquitous. There is no reason why only a per capita formula has been used. For example, we could be looking at the length of time that areas have been under restrictions. We could be looking at the number of businesses impacted, the number of workers impacted, the extent of deprivation or the extent of low pay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) set out so ably. Why are the Government so secretive about this phantom framework, and why are Conservative Members letting them get away with it?
Leicester, for example, was not covered by that phantom framework. It received less than half the business support that other areas have received. Here is the rub—the rub we all know about, but which Conservative Members do not seem willing to stand up to. If that phantom framework was in place all the time, why on earth have we had the spectacle of these one-sided negotiations? As my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) have said, the Government are picking regions off one after the other. It has been an iniquitous mess over  the last couple of weeks, and it is getting messier day  by day. The Chief Secretary said today that Barnett  consequentials are going to be used for this phantom formula. Are they? Again, is that written down anywhere? I cannot see it. He made reference to funding announced by the Prime Minister, but we still have no detail on that funding for local government, with no indication of how it will be allocated and no indication of when it will arrive. We still know nothing about what has happened to the £1.3 billion underspend on the business grants programme. That could be used right now to support businesses that are struggling, but the Government are refusing to do so. The first question—and I would be really grateful if the Government finally answered this—is: why will they not be open about the phantom framework, when will they publish it, when will they let us vote on it and when will they stop this absolute chaos?
The second big question is: why will the Government not be open about the job support scheme extension and the fact that, alongside universal credit, it often will not prevent hardship at all? The Mayor of Greater Manchester and other local leaders are absolutely right to highlight this. The Government have been all over the place on this issue. The Prime Minister actually had to correct himself because he got it wrong. Again, the Chief Secretary mentioned some examples today, but I think we all noticed that he left some critical bits out of those examples, did he not? There is the fact that people have to wait for five weeks before they get that support, that they will not get it to the same extent if they have saved above £6,000 or, indeed, that it is dependent on their partner’s circumstances as well. My hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) ably set that out. Those exclusions can be fixed to make a reality of what Government figures have said, rather than just the rhetoric, but the Government are refusing to do this. They could switch the initial grant into a loan in universal credit, they could remove the savings threshold and they could push local housing allowance up to median rents. Why will they not?
The third question that this Government are running away from is: why do they already seem to accept the failure of JSS—not the JSS extension, but JSS—even though it has not even started? I thought it was highly instructive that, when discussion about support for businesses in tier 2 areas came up during this debate, neither the Chief Secretary nor indeed any Conservative Members mentioned the JSS. It seems as though the Government have already factored into their plans the failure of that scheme. My hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and, indeed, for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spelled out very clearly the implications of that failure and that of the new version of the self- employment income support scheme for their constituents.
While we have all been sitting in this Chamber, we have received the news that the Chancellor is coming tomorrow—he is coming tomorrow—to make an economic statement. I say to him: seize this chance. He should seize this chance to fix the JSS so that it actually supports jobs rather than doing so little to stem the tide of unemployment, and seize this chance to support workers facing hardship under JSS-plus—the JSS extension. He should also sort out this support for tier 3 areas and end this appalling charade. Finally, in the time I have left let me just say that the last thing the Chancellor  needs to do tomorrow is to get with the programme—the programme of what his Prime Minister has said—because the Prime Minister said that he would not rule out a circuit breaker as he knows that the science supports one.
We all know in our heart of hearts, as we have heard time and again from Government Members today, that the system of rolling regional restrictions is hammering our country’s economy but not doing enough to get the virus down. The only alternative is a circuit breaker. Research shows that failing to implement a circuit break to fix test, trace and isolate could cost our economy £110 billion. Tomorrow, the Chancellor must come here and act now to get a grip on this virus and save lives and livelihoods.

Jesse Norman: We have had a lively, passionate and—what should I say?—vigorous debate across the House. We have heard a wide range of arguments and a considerable amount of passion. It is clear, however, that when we cut through the air being discharged on either side of the Chamber, there is a commonality of values across the House. In fact, the House is united on the most fundamental issues that we face, which are the need to combat this terrible covid-19 virus; the need to protect public health; the need to make every effort to prevent economic harm to our businesses, jobs and people; and the need to protect the fabric of our society. We all share those ambitions.
To do that, we need to do achieve a balance, as the Chancellor discussed last week. In the words of the deputy chief medical officer last night, we are trying to walk “a very fine line” between getting the virus under control in areas where it is surging and incurring minimal damage to the daily lives and livelihoods of people across the country. It was noticeable that the deputy chief medical officer also made it explicit that he did not support a national lockdown, that he backed a local approach and that it would not be appropriate to impose the strictest restrictions across the country. I thought that was an important and telling point from an independent adviser.
For the same reasons, it is clear that no Government, in any normal circumstances, would wish to impose the restrictions that we are discussing today. I can only express my thanks and recognition to the people of Liverpool, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire for the fortitude that they have demonstrated, are demonstrating and will demonstrate.
The evidence shows that the most successful countries in combating covid-19 are those that have adopted localised measures to protect their populations. That is why we launched the three covid alert levels for England based on the prevalence of the virus in those areas. Although it is vital that we take decisive action to control the virus where it is surging, as we did yesterday in Manchester, we must also recognise that covid-19 is spreading in different ways and at different speeds across the country.
Covid-19 is a virus that we do not fully understand  in epidemiological terms, or indeed in medical terms, but we know enough to say that the epidemiological evidence simply does not justify introducing a national circuit breaker. The costs of such an approach would be absolutely huge.
I vigorously support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), who said that there were weaknesses in the Welsh Government’s decision to impose a circuit breaker because it would put tremendous strain on areas where there had been no great upsurge in the virus. That point was also made by the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). It falls in fact into the category of being unnecessarily damaging to the economic fabric of our country.
The idea that the Welsh Government have done that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South put it, without adequate scrutiny, is a sharp contrast to here where the Opposition have been vigorous in holding  the Government to account, and rightly so. Having said that, it is important to say, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last week, that these are not virtual costs: every day that a national lockdown was in place would bring very real costs in jobs lost, businesses closed and children’s education harmed. The costs can be measured and weighed in permanent damage to the economy, which in turn undermines our ability to fund our public services.
Let me briefly remind the House of what we are doing to support, in a broad, deep and consistent way, areas that face higher restrictions. We are helping businesses with fixed costs such as rents and bills through a new business grant scheme. We are supporting local authorities in tier 2 or 3 with significant new funding. We have introduced a national funding formula of £1 per head in tier 1 areas with a high incidence, going up to £3 and £8. Of course, that is just a covid-outbreak-combat measure —it is dedicated to a small part of a much wider pattern of programmes of support totalling, as the House will know, more than £200 billion in total. To give the House a sense of scale, that means that areas in high or very high alert are receiving, or will receive, up to half a billion pounds just focused on public health activities to do with combating the virus, such as local enforcement and contact tracing. That comes on top of the £6 billion that we have already provided to local authorities since the start of the crisis.
The third element is extra support for local authorities in tier 3—

Clive Betts: Will the Minister give way?

Jesse Norman: I would but I have been given so little time and have so much material to get through. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind if I press on.
As the House will know, we have provided one-off grants to Lancashire and Liverpool and will continue to do so for other authorities. Finally, we are expanding the job support scheme: businesses that have been legally required to close, whether in tier 3 areas or elsewhere, will be able to claim a direct wage subsidy.
Let me say a couple of things on the issue more widely before I finish. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) quite rightly said at the outset of this pandemic that it would be, in her words, “completely inappropriate” to engage in party politics on these desperately important issues of human life and human wellbeing. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said that we should not be having “political games”. I am afraid that an awful lot of what we have seen in the past 48 hours has been political games and party politics. It is a terrible, terrible shame.
Love Manchester though I do, I am afraid there is no reason why it should be treated as a special case and any differently from any other part of the country. Every country faces the potential of being struck down by covid and every part of this country should be supported in a proper way that is consistent across the piece. When the Mayor of Birmingham says, by contrast, that he will not put lives at risk, we have to recognise the sincerity and importance of his view.
Let me pick up a couple of other points that have been made. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke of Abraham Lincoln; she may also remember that Lincoln said that the gentleman he spoke of compressed the smallest amount of thought into the largest number of words. I am afraid we have seen a bit of that today.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) called for rationality and a truly national strategy; that is exactly what we are offering. That is what the Government are giving to her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) was absolutely right to highlight the danger of theatrics and the importance of our not making this a north-south issue. It is absolutely not that. This is an issue in respect of which we are all desperately concerned to do the same thing: to protect people’s livelihoods, to protect their health and to protect the fabric of our economy and our society. What is the Labour alternative? A national firebreak? A circuit break? We should do everything that we possibly can to avoid that because of the unfairness of striking down areas that do not have high virus levels and suppressing their businesses. We all recognise the economic costs associated with that.
I do not think it is consistent with the Labour party’s commitment to avoid party politics to have descriptions from the Opposition Benches of, in one phrase, “screwing people over” heard in this Chamber, or, indeed, to hear references to a Member of this Chamber as scum from the Labour Front Bench.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 340.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House recognises the virus is sa1preading differently across the country which supports the need for a regional and local approach; acknowledges the fact that repeated national lockdowns should be avoided given the cost they have on mental wellbeing, access to NHS treatment, and jobs in the economy; supports the Government’s Job Support Scheme which protects the jobs and incomes of those in affected businesses; recognises the extra financial support provided to Local Authorities for enforcement, local contact tracing and businesses, and approves of Government trying to work with local representatives to improve enforcement and Test and Trace.

Katherine Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Mancunians, we agree that being fair is most important, after being proud of who we are and where we come from. Is it in order for a senior member of the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), to call out repeatedly “scum” when my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) was talking, and then fail to retract it or apologise? Today, she has shamed Manchester and shamed this House. She should apologise.

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the point of order. I understand that she informed the office of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that she was making that point of order. That is always important, by the way. The Chairman of Ways and Means dealt with this matter when the exchange to which the hon. Lady refers occurred. I will, therefore, not revisit it, but I remind hon. Members that they should use appropriate language in their contributions in the Chamber and in any sedentary contributions. I also remind the House of the words in “Erskine May”:
“Good temper and moderation are characteristics of parliamentary language.”
I was only in the chair for 45 minutes of the last debate, and I heard terminology and language that made me wince. I did not intervene then, but I will next time.
I am not going to suspend the House now, because the Dispatch Boxes were sanitised during the Division. To save time and so that at least one more Member may speak, we will move straight on to the next debate.

Free School Meals

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Kate Green: I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to continue directly funding provision of free school meals over the school holidays until Easter 2021 to prevent over a million children going hungry during this crisis.
I am very pleased to open today’s debate on such an important motion on behalf of children across the country who are at risk of going hungry and of all the families worried that their children will be hungry over the school holidays.
The truth is that we should not be having this debate at all. In the summer, when this issue was debated in this House, the Government saw sense, did the right thing and ensured that no child would go hungry over the summer holidays. This time, however, despite many families facing even more challenging circumstances now than they did four months ago, shamefully the Government are walking away from their obligation to hungry children. In their hearts, hon. Members on the Government Benches who rightly supported the extension of free school meals over the summer holidays know that. They will also know that the thousands of families who rely on free school meals to help them to make ends meet will watch with great interest how they vote this evening. I am aware that there are some right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches who are indicating that they will vote in favour of this motion. I commend them for setting party politics aside and I hope that by the end of this evening many more of their colleagues will join them.
More than 1.4 million children benefit from free school meals. Nearly 900,000 eligible children live in areas now subject to tier 2 and tier 3 covid restrictions. Their families face an upcoming furlough cliff-edge, an inadequate replacement system and the deep fear of growing unemployment. So the question for Members on the Government Benches is simple: are they absolutely confident that support is adequate and that no child in their constituencies will go hungry?

Kevin Hollinrake: Does the hon. Lady consider this to be a temporary measure while the covid crisis continues or a permanent measure that would be on the statute book indefinitely?

Kate Green: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Initially, I would suggest that we urgently need a measure that will take us through this half term and the remainder of this academic year. We understand that nobody can predict how the virus might progress over the coming months, but it is crystal clear that what we need to vote for tonight is an urgent emergency measure to protect children and families who are struggling.

Tan Dhesi: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in the midst of her excellent oration. There are 3,891 children in Slough who are known to require free school meals.  Does she agree that if feeding those children over the summer was the right and humane thing to do in the middle of a pandemic, surely it is right and honourable to feed them over the winter when their parents are struggling to put food on the table and more than 1 million children could potentially go hungry? Or does she think that the Prime Minister has merely changed his priorities once again?

Kate Green: My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, and he is right to draw attention to the Prime Minister’s view on this matter, because Downing Street said just the other day:
“It’s not for schools to provide food to pupils during the school holidays.”
I cannot believe I have to spell this out: it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that children do not go hungry, and they do not stop being hungry just because the school bell rings for the end of term. Surely our constituents send us to this place as Members of Parliament to vote to ensure that the children who most need our help at any time of year are protected.

Tim Farron: The hon. Lady is making a passionate and thought-through speech. Does she agree that the holiday periods are always a difficulty—whether or not there is a pandemic—for those children from families on free school meals? They always need that support, and that should be something we are doing irrespective of the pandemic. In my constituency, 40% of the entire workforce are on furlough. The cliff edge is coming in a few days’ time, when the number of people desperate for support will increase massively. Is it not therefore right that we take action today?

Kate Green: That is right. The debate this evening is urgent. Let me say to Members on the Government Benches: please put party politics aside tonight and for the sake of our children vote to extend free school meals. After all, since the summer holidays, exactly as we have just heard, the situation has got worse and more desperate for millions of families.
While the provision of free school meals is being closed, the gravy train is still open for business—with £7,000 a day for consultants working on a test and trace system that does not work, £130 million to a Conservative party donor for unsafe covid testing kits, £160 million of profits for Serco and an increased dividend for its shareholders, because the Government threw good money after bad on a test and trace contract that is robbing the public. Yesterday, a Business Minister said that extending free school meals was not as simple as writing a cheque, but why is it that the money only runs out when it is hungry children who need it?
I am surprised there is not greater recognition on the Government Benches that families across the country are finding it very difficult to manage. It was, after all, only a matter of weeks ago that national newspapers were full of briefings from friends of the Prime Minister reporting anxiety about how he had to provide for his family. He had a new baby and, with the loss of his lucrative newspaper columns, his friends said it was a strain to manage on his £150,000 salary as Prime Minister.
It is frankly contemptible that the kind of concern we read in the national newspapers for the Prime Minister’s finances is not extended to the millions across this  country who are genuinely struggling. Imagine being a parent of one of the more than 3,000 children in the Prime Minister’s constituency who benefits from free school meals. To read one week about how hard it is to make ends meet on £150,000 a year and then to see the provision of a free meal for your child taken away a few days later is utterly inexplicable.
The fact that we need to have this debate is a sign of repeated failures on the part of the Government—a failure of compassion, a failure of competence, not recognising the challenges that parents face and not giving them the support they need to provide for their children.

Kieran Mullan: There are roughly 14 million people living in relative poverty this year. In 2000, there were roughly 14 million people living in relative poverty. Why were Labour not able to fix the problems of relative poverty when they were in power?

Kate Green: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like me to enlighten him on the poverty figures during Labour’s period in office. In 2010-11, there were 3.5 million children living in relative poverty. Today, the figure after housing costs is 4.2 million. I would advise him to be very careful about quoting child poverty figures to Labour Members.
We have a failure of leadership today—a failure to be clear and unequivocal. No child should go hungry in one of the world’s richest countries, but where the Government have failed to show leadership, many others have stepped up to do the right thing. As the Member of Parliament for Old Trafford, I am very proud to pay tribute to Marcus Rashford. I congratulate him on his late winning goal last night and I hope that he will score another late victory today when we vote on Labour’s motion. I congratulate and thank the many others across the country who are acting and campaigning to end child poverty and food poverty.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: If the hon. Member will forgive me, no—I will make progress and let others in.
It gives me huge pride to see people come together and take action where the Government are failing to do so. Co-operative schools are already committing to providing free school meals over the holidays. That represents the very best of the co-op movement—a movement built on support for one another, on people helping their neighbours in their community and doing what is right for the most disadvantaged. Will the Secretary of State follow their example?
Colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government, in Northern Ireland and in some parts of Scotland have already committed to providing free school meals over the holidays until Easter. Again, I ask: will the Secretary of State follow their example? Catering staff across our schools have worked flat out to fulfil their essential role in providing free school meals. They are among the many low-paid workers we have learned to depend on during the pandemic, but many feel that their jobs and livelihoods are at risk. Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps are being taken to protect and support the jobs of school catering staff and others who deliver this support to our children?
Before the pandemic, there were over 4 million children growing up in poverty. In the months ahead, that will only increase. Child poverty is a pandemic of its own. It is a pandemic that reflects the great evils still haunting our society—a society blighted by wages that are not enough for working families to make ends meet, a housing crisis that creates insecurity and a social security system cut to ribbons by the Conservative party.
I recognise today’s proposals are not a silver bullet, and they will not end child poverty. They are a sticking plaster, but one that is badly and urgently needed—needed by the 1.4 million children who could go hungry without them and by families worried about putting food on the table—so will the Secretary of State do what is right and take this first small step to ensure that over a million children do not go hungry this Christmas?
As I said at the outset, the Government should never have let things get this far. They still do not have to. The Secretary of State can stand up now and do the right thing. He can listen to Labour, to campaigners and to families across the country, withdraw his amendment and support our motion. Sadly, I do not think he will do so. Yet months ago, Marcus Rashford asked the question that started this debate and that saw the Government extend free school meals over the summer. Today I ask—[Interruption.] Oh, don’t be silly! The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) knows perfectly well that the one thing I am not is frit. Today I ask the Secretary of State the same simple question: can we all agree that no child should go to bed hungry? I commend our motion to the House.

Gavin Williamson: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that schools are now fully operational following the covid-19 outbreak, and will continue to offer free school meals in term time; welcomes the substantial support provided by the Government to children worth £550 million annually; further welcomes that this support has been bolstered by almost £53 billion worth of income protection schemes, and £9.3 billion of additional welfare payments; notes that eligible families have also been supported throughout lockdown through the receipt of meal vouchers worth £380 million while schools were partially closed, alongside the Holiday Activities and Food Fund; and further supports the Government in its ongoing activities to help the most vulnerable children in society.”
As we all know, this is a unique and hugely challenging period that our nation faces. We understand the profound impact that the pandemic has had on people’s lives. Supporting those on lower incomes and vulnerable families is very much at the heart of the Government’s response. I recognise and understand the strength of feeling around this issue, both within this House and more widely. I would like to take this opportunity to outline the significant steps that we have taken to support children during the pandemic and the package of support available from the Government for families who might otherwise be facing hardship.
As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer have both made clear throughout this period, the Government will continue to support people affected by coronavirus. We have taken unprecedented action to support families and jobs, as we take measures to tackle this virus. That is  why we have undertaken the most radical overhaul of our welfare system since Beveridge, by introducing universal credit, ensuring that work pays for everyone. If we had not taken those bold actions—actions that were opposed by Labour at every single stage—this country would not have been in a position to support those families and individuals, who are most vulnerable in society.

Karin Smyth: May I take the Secretary of State back to children and schools? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has outlined, schools are anchors in the community. School leaders are already overburdened by much of what they are having to do, but they are already doing much of it. This week I visited FareShare South West in Bristol, which reaches out and uses community anchors to feed children and families. We have a golden opportunity to use schools as community anchors. The Secretary of State needs to see this differently and do that, and also include nurseries and children’s centres—the anchors for families. He needs to reconsider.

Gavin Williamson: I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting another Government initiative—FareShare receives considerable support from the Government, as do such schemes as Magic Breakfast, in recognition of the important role that the voluntary sector plays in provision and support for schools and children. Let me also take this opportunity to thank not just the teachers and support staff in her constituency, but those in all our constituencies, who have done an amazing job in ensuring, despite opposition from Labour on numerous occasions, that every school has the opportunity to open and that children can go back, as we have been able to do so.

Paul Maynard: As my predecessor as candidate in Blackpool North and Fleetwood, my right hon. Friend will know that I have some 6,000 pupils reliant on free school meals in my constituency, and I am deeply disappointed by the decision that has been taken at the moment. Will he commit to pushing in the comprehensive spending review for a much more strategic approach that rolls out the school holiday activity fund nationwide—a universal approach to tackling child poverty that does not just stigmatise those on free school meals?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend raises a really important point, which I was going to come to, about the important role that the holiday activities and food programme has played in making a real difference for children. This debate should not be just about food; we have to look at different ways that we can support children and families. Children, often from the most deprived backgrounds, are sometimes in a situation over the long summer period of not being able to have the level of support that we would like to see all children benefit from, and we should look at how we can roll out that programme more into the future. It has been very successful in the previous two years and we would like to see how we can do more in the future.

Tan Dhesi: rose—

Gavin Williamson: I am looking forward with enthusiasm to turning to the hon. Gentleman, but let me just finish addressing the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
As my hon. Friend will know, we have invested a considerable amount of money in the opportunity areas, which are looking at some of the real long-term challenges that we have in Blackpool as well as in 12 other areas right around the country.[Official Report, 3 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 4MC.] I would be very happy to sit down with him to see how we can link up what we are doing with the Blackpool opportunity area, and the progress that we are making on that, in addressing some of the concerns that I know he has.
Let me make just a little more progress, and then I will hand over to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who I know is keen to get in. I was talking about universal credit and how it has been such an important part of our response to the covid crisis. If we had not had universal credit in place, the job of the Department for Work and Pensions and the whole of Government would have been so much more challenging in being able support everyone in this country. By tapering benefits and providing work allowances to those facing the greatest barriers to work, we ensure that people are always better off in work. Something that is often forgotten is the number of barriers that we inherited and had to deal with when we came to power back in 2010, as a result of the legacy of the last Labour Government.
That is why between 2015-16 and 2019-20, we have taken 1.7 million people out of tax. Yes, we on the Government side of the House believe that tax cuts are good, and they benefit the poorest in society by taking them out of tax. We provided approximately 32 million people with a tax cut by raising the personal tax allowance to £12,500. I personally, and I think a lot of Government Members, think that helping 32 million people is a good thing.

Tan Dhesi: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words and for allowing me to intervene. Food bank usage is predicted to be 61% higher this coming winter than it was last winter. That is a mere prediction. It will take a lot more than free school meals to sort out this poverty crisis, but does the Secretary of State agree that that is the least we can do to help support struggling families?

Gavin Williamson: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a man who has great passion and belief on the subject of education and how we support the most vulnerable people in society, and he raises an important point about how we can support those people. Our view is, clearly, that the best way of doing that is through the universal credit system and ensuring that we have a welfare system that works for everyone in this country.
As I touched on, we have raised the personal tax allowance to £12,500 to ensure that those on the lowest incomes benefit, and at the same time we have raised the adult national living wage to £8.72, up from the adult national minimum wage of £5.80 at the start of 2010.

Neil Parish: I very much welcome the support being given to poorer families, but the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs looked at covid and the food supply, and there is no doubt that it is hugely challenging for the poorest in society to get food at the moment. Does the Secretary of State accept that some of these families are very challenged, and that if we give them money, it does not necessarily get to food for children—[Interruption.] No, it does not. Therefore, I think school meal vouchers  are a good way of getting food out to those families that really need it, so will he re-look at meal vouchers for Christmas?

Gavin Williamson: That is what is so incredibly important about our free school meals programme, which originally came into existence in 1906 and has evolved considerably since. The programme has the raised the standards of what children receive and has expanded to support so many others. It is an important part of what we deliver. I will touch on that later in my speech.

Munira Wilson: rose—

Gavin Williamson: I know that the hon. Lady is eager to intervene—I am sure that it is an interchangeable point that she can probably make at any time in my speech. If I could make some progress, I will give way to her later.
Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, we have been prioritising supporting jobs. We are helping employees to get back into work with an £1,000 bonus for employers if they keep on a member of staff. We are doubling the number of frontline work coaches, and putting in place a new job support scheme to protect jobs and businesses that are facing lower demand over the winter due to coronavirus. We are determined to build back better, which is why we have introduced a £30 billion plan for jobs, including the £2 billion kickstart scheme to help 250,000 16 to 24-year-olds on universal credit to get a foot on the jobs ladder.

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

Gavin Williamson: I am going to give way to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) before the hon. Lady, but first I will make just a little bit more progress.
In this unprecedented time, the Government are proud to have injected £9 billion into the welfare system, because we on this side of the House recognised that action needed to be taken to protect and support those who are most vulnerable. That support has been targeted at those on low incomes, and includes increasing universal credit and working tax credit by up to £1,040 for this financial year, which benefits more than 4 million households. We have also provided an additional £63 million in welfare assistance funding for local authorities to support families with urgent needs, including over the October half-term.

Munira Wilson: I was not going to make an inter- changeable point; I actually wanted to pick up on a point that the Secretary of State made earlier in his speech about raising the income tax personal allowance. Given that he is making such a passionate defence of what was a Liberal Democrat policy in the coalition Government, perhaps he might follow another Liberal Democrat policy—that of the Education Minister in Wales, Kirsty Williams, who has extended free school meals until April next year—so that some 2,000 children in my constituency of Twickenham will not go hungry in the holidays this winter.

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Lady will probably remember that it was a coalition Government that the Liberal Democrats were part of. We are proud that the UK Government have provided free school meals to  those who have needed them for over a century. They are an essential part of our education system, supporting 1.4 million students from the lowest-income families to learn and to achieve in the classroom.
This Government have always recognised the importance of free school meals. That is why it was the Conservatives, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats—the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) may want to intervene at this point—who, in September 2014, extended free school meals to disadvantaged further education students for the first time ever. Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, schools have continued to receive their expected funding to cover both free school meals and universal infant free school meals.

Tim Farron: I was not going to make that point, but it was actually another example of a policy that you guys definitely did oppose, and which we managed to persuade you to do. But that is not my point.
My point is about support for children, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, when it comes to their learning. It is clear that young people who have no access to learning technology at home fall further behind than those who do have access to wi-fi, laptops and larger screens. There are 2,300 children living in poverty—below the poverty line—in my constituency, yet only 116 PCs were delivered to support them. Should not the Secretary of State look at that provision again, so that people from poorer backgrounds do not fall further behind at school?

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about learning for children. He has the privilege of representing a beautiful and rural part of the world, and he know some of the challenges that come with that. Beauty can often disguise some of the poverty that sits behind it, and he is right to mention some of the challenges around how we support schools. We have extended the laptop scheme, making more available. In total, close to 500,000 laptops will be made available for schools, and we continue to work with the sector to do everything we can to support schools in the delivery of remote education.

Kevin Hollinrake: rose—

Gavin Williamson: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I hope Members will forgive me if I then make some progress.

Kevin Hollinrake: These are obviously exceptional times, but temporary solutions tend to become permanent. By the way, it was not me who called the shadow Secretary of State “frit”—I wanted to clear that up. If Opposition Members are suggesting a permanent right to free school meals during the holidays, why did they not introduce such a provision during their many years in power? Should we have an honest conversation with the public about whether such a measure would require raising taxes to pay for that increased welfare?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend raises important points about what is temporary and what is permanent. Indeed, there seems to be some disagreement here, because the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston  (Kate Green) seems to be moving away from the motion that she tabled. I was a little confused about whether she was developing her policy at the Dispatch Box, or whether her policy is stated in the motion.
There are real challenges around youngsters and tackling poverty, and Conservative Members are intent on ensuring that we put in place actions to deal with those issues, and that families, children, and individuals get the support they need. The best way to do that is through the welfare system; the best way to do that is by supporting people into work, as that is always the best route out of poverty.

Kate Green: rose—

Gavin Williamson: I will make some progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Lady. In March we took the unprecedented step of asking schools to close to all but a very small number of children. Given that children were expected to study from home in such an unexpected manner, we took swift and decisive action, and invested significant funding to ensure that we could continue free school meal provision for eligible children. We also, temporarily, extended eligibility for free school meals to children from families with no recourse to public funds—an arrangement that we have extended into the autumn term while we undertake a review. It is right that such extraordinary measures were put in place at the start of the pandemic.
Now that pupils are back in schools, kitchens are open once again to provide healthy, nutritious meals to all children—including those eligible for free school meals—aiding their academic performance, and supporting attendance and engagement. We have also set out in guidance information for schools and caterers to support free school meal pupils who are self-isolating, through the provision of food parcels to those children.

Kate Green: I simply wanted to ask the Secretary of State, in the context of what he was saying about his party’s determination to reduce child poverty, whether he agrees with his colleague who, today at lunchtime on the BBC, said that there have always been hungry children, as if that were somehow a reason not to take action.

Gavin Williamson: I think it is fair to say that Members on both sides of the House are united in their commitment to drive out poverty and to make sure that children do not go hungry. We will do everything we can to support families and help them to do well and to succeed, and to provide them with a world-class education system driving up standards. That is what drives Conservative Members and always will.

David Simmonds: rose—

Gavin Williamson: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Nigel Evans: Order. The Secretary of State has been incredibly generous with interventions, but there are 43 Members on the call list and we would like to get them in. There will be time limits, by the way, so please keep that in mind.

David Simmonds: Was the Secretary of State moved, as I was, by The Times “Red Box” article that Marcus Rashford wrote? Did he find it quite striking that the  anxiety and difficulties that he described in growing up, with his mum’s worry about feeding the children, took place entirely under a Labour Government who claimed that eradicating child poverty was their front and central policy?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend points out that this is a challenge that both parties face. There is a sense of commitment on the Conservative Benches to make a real and long-lasting difference to this, and that is what we will do.
We have sent out our guidance information to schools about how they can be supporting children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We understand how important this is. It is a continued focus of this Government and always will be. Schools are an integral part of our local communities. However, free school meals have only ever been intended to provide support during term-time periods while children are engaging in activity and learning. The provision of a healthy school meal helps children to concentrate and learn, as most recently evidenced by the pilot programme in 2012 that led to the introduction of universal infant free school meals in 2014. This complements a wider range of Government support that responds more directly to the challenges faced by families on lower incomes, and is further supplemented by the additional support in place as a direct result of the pandemic.

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

Gavin Williamson: I do apologise, but Mr Deputy Speaker has been quite clear about wanting me to make progress, and I would best do so.
During the unprecedented and unpredictable period at the start of the pandemic, it was right that extra measures were taken to provide free school meals during the holidays, but we are in a different position now that we have welcomed all pupils back to school. We know that the long summer break is the time when families most welcome support, and when children will most benefit from engaging activities so that they are ready to learn when they return to school in September. For the past three years, we have supported disadvantaged children with free healthy meals and enriching activities through our holiday activities and food programme. This summer, the £9 million holiday activities and food programme supported about 50,000 children across 17 different local authority areas. We have also provided £63 million in welfare assistance funding to local authorities to support families with urgent needs. This funding was passed to councils in July to provide local access to funding for those who need support, including families facing financial challenge.
Education is the No. 1 route to opportunity and prosperity. We invest more in the education of disadvantaged children to give them the very best chance in life, both through the weighted national funding formula and the £2.4 billion annual pupil premium. We have invested £1 billion in the covid catch-up fund, including investing in the national tutoring programme, which will offer high-quality small-group tutoring to disadvantaged pupils who have fallen furthest behind. We are equally determined to encourage the continuation of high-quality childcare, which helps parents to work and is a critical building block in children’s development. We are proud that since 2013 the proportion of children  achieving a good level of development at the end of reception year has gone from one in two to nearly three out of four.
However, we recognise that these are unprecedented and difficult times for some families, and that is why the Government have significantly strengthened the welfare net. We have put in place additional welfare measures worth around £9 billion in this financial year, including increasing universal credit and working tax credit by up to £1,040 for this financial year, benefiting more than 4 million households. These welfare measures sit alongside our extensive support package, including the income protection schemes that have so far protected 12 million jobs at a cost of almost £53 billion for England alone. This is one of the most significant interventions by any Government in the western world. We recognise how important it is to protect not only jobs but families, and that is why we have taken these interventions. Taken together, it is clear that the Government have taken significant and unprecedented action to support children and families at risk of hardship during this period.
Free school meals are, and always have been, about supporting children with a meal to help them to learn when they are at school or, indeed, currently at home learning. However, it is our support through universal credit and our comprehensive welfare system that supports families. I have outlined a significant series of actions from across Government to support families who may otherwise struggle in the light of a pandemic, including £9 billion in welfare, £53 billion for job support measures, £63 million for local authorities to help those with urgent needs and £350 million to help the most disadvantaged students to catch up at school. Those are just a few things that this Government have put in place to support those who are most disadvantaged. They represent a direct financial response to the pandemic and demonstrate that the Government are doing everything possible to support those who need help. I encourage Members from across the House to support the Government as we tackle this pandemic and the impact it has on people across society, and I commend our amendment to the House.

Nigel Evans: Before I call Brendan O’Hara, I should like to inform the House that the time limit will be five minutes for the Chairman of the Education Committee and four minutes thereafter.

Brendan O'Hara: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate this afternoon and to give the full support of the Scottish National party to this Opposition motion. We very much welcome this debate, particularly as just yesterday the Scottish Government announced a £10 million package of funding for local authorities to continue providing free school meals over the forthcoming school holidays, up to and including the Easter break of 2021. The Scottish Government did that, quite simply, because in the middle of a global pandemic and with an economic crisis looming, that was the right thing to do. As the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security, Shirley-Anne Somerville, said:
“We are doing all we can to ensure the right support gets to the right people at the right time in the right way”.
Part of getting the right support to the right people in the right way at the right time involves ensuring that those who are most exposed to the economic consequences  of the pandemic know that their children will still at least have one hot meal every day, even if it is during the school holidays. I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) that it is remarkable that, in the 21st century, at a time like this, in one of the richest countries in the world, we are even having to debate this or to ask the Government to fund free school meals over the school holiday period to prevent 1.5 million of the poorest and most vulnerable children in England from going hungry.
I, too, would like to pay tribute to the work done by Marcus Rashford to shine a light on this issue. As a hugely successful young professional athlete, it would have been so easy for him not to have done what he has, but it is a measure of him as a person that he has not forgotten where he came from and the struggle that his family and others had to endure every day growing up. In his public petition, he is asking the Government to keep going with the free school meal programme that was put in place over the summer holidays and did so much to help children from low-income families, who have been hardest hit by the pandemic. It is not a huge ask, but it has struck a chord across these islands, including several hundred of my constituents in Argyll and Bute, who, although not directly affected by this, have been struck by the sincerity and compassion of this young man.
Sadly, that compassion was not replicated in the Government’s response to the petition reaching 300,000 signatures. Their spokesperson said:
“It’s not for schools to regularly provide food to pupils during the school holidays. We believe the best way to support families outside of term time is through Universal Credit rather than government subsidising meals.”
Of course, they said that when the Government had just announced that they were taking the £20 universal credit uplift away. That particularly dismissive, not to say callous, response exposes just how hollow the Chancellor’s promise was back in the summer to do “whatever it takes” to help people through this crisis. As we head into what will certainly be very difficult times this winter, with coronavirus cases on the rise, prompting fears of a second wave, taking away food from under- privileged children seems a perverse way of doing whatever it takes to help. Bizarrely, that same UK Government spokesperson said of the summer holiday school meal scheme:
“This is a specific measure to reflect the unique circumstances of the pandemic”
as if we had somehow come through it all, the pandemic had gone and everything had returned to normal. Is that really what the Government wanted to say? Is that the message that they wanted to get out? If so, it is palpable nonsense, as any health professional, self-employed worker, hospitality business owner, seasonal worker or someone who is about to lose their furlough will confirm—as will the parent and carer of every poor child in England whose income has fallen and are now reliant on food banks and for whom a free school meal had become almost a daily necessity.
This is a political choice. There is no doubt that if this Government prioritised eradicating poverty, the money would be found in an instant, because poverty is not accidental. It is not inevitable. It is a political choice. Poverty is not something that happens by accident.  Children going hungry in a country as rich as this is a consequence—a direct consequence—of political choices. A decade of austerity in which the poorest and weakest in our society were forced to carry the can and bear the brunt of a financial crisis that had nothing to do with them was a political choice, and so too is the decision to take away poor children’s food during an economic and health crisis. It is staggering.

Wera Hobhouse: I was going to ask the Secretary of State this. We all know how important healthy eating is—not just food on the table but healthy food on the table. During the covid crisis, the Government suspended the fruit and veg scheme, and it was only reinstated after some serious campaigning by the organisation Sustain. Does the hon. Member agree with me and Sustain that the fruit and veg scheme should be extended to all primary school children, so that they have the benefit of it?

Brendan O'Hara: That is not really a question for me—I am not and never would aspire to be the Secretary of State for Education—but I take on board the hon. Member’s point, because it is about political choices. That is why I am so pleased that the Scottish Government have chosen to use the limited powers they have to support 156,000 of our children and young people by committing £10 million to ensure that those children who need it will continue to get a free school meal during this holiday and every holiday up to Easter 2021. In addition, the Scottish Government have announced £20 million of funding to be made available to local councils to help tackle financial insecurity. That funding will be sufficiently flexible for councils to be able to provide support to people who, shamefully, have no recourse to public funds and would otherwise be destitute and have no access to mainstream benefits.
Of course child poverty still exists in Scotland; no one could or would deny it. But the difference between what the UK Government are doing and what the SNP is doing in Holyrood is that the Scottish Government are doing what they can, with limited powers, to alleviate the worst effects of the Government’s policies, to try to improve the lives of Scotland’s poorest children. That was recognised by both the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty, who praised the Scottish Government for using what he described as their
“newly devolved powers to establish a promising social security system guided by the principles of dignity”.
Included in that new security system is the Scottish child payment, which will pay the equivalent of £10 a week per child to families with eligible children who are currently in receipt of low-income benefit. From November, the fund will be open to families with children under the age of six, recognising that, of all children in poverty, almost 60% live in a family where a child is under six years old. Although there is no cap to the number of children per family, it means, for a family with two children under six, £1,040 a year extra in their pockets. That is expected to alleviate the worst excesses of poverty for 194,000 children, and it is a significant investment by the Scottish Government.
I understand that the Government intend to vote against the motion tonight. I hope the Whips have done their arithmetic, because I understand that at least one group of Conservatives will be voting with the Opposition  this evening—the Scottish Conservatives. It was less than a month ago that the new leader, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), declared that providing free school meals, breakfast and lunch to every primary school pupil in Scotland was to be his flagship policy in next year’s Scottish elections. He said:
“I have seen myself the difference that providing free meals can make. I just want to make sure no-one falls through the cracks and by giving this to all primary school pupils we can make sure the offer is there for everyone.”
Given his words, it is absolutely inconceivable that he and his colleagues would do anything other than vote for the motion tonight and provide the same level of support for the 1.5 million children in England who will benefit from school meals. That is why, despite being wholly devolved, we will be in the Lobby this evening alongside, I believe, every single Scottish MP when the House divides this evening.

Nigel Evans: It will be five minutes for the Chair of the Education Select Committee and four minutes thereafter.

Robert Halfon: Throughout the pandemic, the Secretary of State has acted significantly to support families in financial distress, and I thank both the Children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and the Minister with responsibility for universal credit, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), for the many discussions that I have had with them on these subjects.
The £20 a week uplift to universal credit and the £63 million for local authorities to provide families with emergency food and essential supplies has been a lifeline, but all the while that support has been in place, food insecurity has continued to rise. Between January and September 2020, the Harlow food bank gave out 118 tonnes of food—nearly double the tonnage of last year—and nationally, 32% of households have experienced a drop in income since late March. An estimated 1.9 million children have been affected by food insecurity in the same period, according to the Food Foundation, and 2% of adults said they had skipped meals entirely. That is only set to continue.

Neil Parish: My right hon. Friend is quite right about food insecurity, because that is exactly what the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report found. Does he agree that, if a sugar tax were implemented, raising £300 million, it would cost about £20 million per week to support free school meals? Surely it would be money well spent. I believe that the sugar tax was meant for helping poor people to get food.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I will come to that later. I am asking not for huge amounts of new money from the Treasury, but for the redistribution of the proceeds of the existing sugar tax, which disproportionately hits those on low incomes, back to those on lower incomes through free school meals and food programmes.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast a 13.2% rise in unemployment, meaning that 336,500 more working adults could face food insecurity. Now is the time for a long-term plan on combating food hunger from the Government, rather than a series of patchwork solutions.
First, I urge the Government to collect and publish proper data on child food insecurity. The most recent DFE estimate of the number of children eligible for free school meals, provided to me in a recent letter from the Children’s Minister, is 1.4 million. The figures are from January 2020, and we know that since then the world has been turned on its head. The Food Foundation suggests that the figure is now more like 2.2 million children, with 900,000 newly registered.
To the Government’s credit, there are a number of schemes to relieve food hunger, but what is being done to ensure that they are working? In September, for example, just 47.3% of eligible mothers were receiving healthy start vouchers, and those uptake figures are in decline. Much more could be done to boost awareness of those schemes, digitise healthy start vouchers and ensure that all those eligible for free school meals are registered quickly.
Secondly, free school meals should be extended over the school holidays temporarily for as long as the big effects of the pandemic continue to be felt. I would only support that temporarily. If we acknowledge that children risk going hungry in term time by providing them with free school meals despite the provision of universal credit and the other things that have been mentioned by the Government, we know that they risk going hungry in the holidays too.
Thirdly, as the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment, “Hungry for change: fixing the failures in food”, recommended, when calculating universal credit allowances, the Government must consider the cost of buying and preparing healthy, nutritious meals under its own Eatwell scheme. Fourthly, the Government should implement the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on school breakfasts and give all disadvantaged schools the funding to provide a free school breakfast to children at risk of hunger. We know that that increases educational progress by two months, and average GCSE achievement goes up for those children who have a regular breakfast.
Fifthly, we need a programme of holiday activities not just over the summer, but over every school holiday, to offer academic catch-up, as well as mental health and wellbeing support. I have seen that work in my constituency of Harlow, with children getting fed. Of course, I understand there are significant financial constraints on the Treasury right now, but these proposals do not need new money. It is also time for prominent retailers, suppliers and manufacturers to take on a much bigger role and match fund Government investment in tackling child food insecurity. It is no good just ticking a virtue-signalling box on a taskforce—they should actually act. We should ring-fence the £340 million a year in revenue from the tax on sugary drinks to cover the cost of these proposals.
The sugar tax, as I mentioned, hits families on lower incomes. Why should we not redistribute the revenue to fund these policy proposals, helping those same families facing food insecurity? Kellogg’s has found that hunger in the classroom costs the English economy at least £5.2 million a year. All the evidence shows that if we feed children properly, we increase educational attainment and boost life chances. It is a no-brainer. I urge the Government to set out a serious long-term plan to  combat childhood hunger, and—at least until we are over the coronavirus—keep free school meals going through the winter and Easter holidays.

Nigel Evans: While I personally rather like the new artistic screen displays, I have been assured that technicians are on to it so that they do not distract too much. I call Paul Maynard with a four-minute limit.

Paul Maynard: As I said earlier, with over 6,000 children eligible for free school meals in my constituency, tackling food poverty during the school holidays is more than important: it is the ultimate example in politics of where something must be done. That is very different from saying that anything should be done. We need to ensure that the right support reaches the right children and, most importantly, in the right manner to have the impact required.
I note the support that has already been provided, not least the £120 million extra spent over the critical summer holiday period. I note the £1,000 a year uplift in universal credit, as well as the £1 billion extra in local housing allowance. It is worth noting that eligibility for universal credit covers far more children than the much narrower eligibility for free school meals does, and that is supporting the financial resilience of many families in my constituency at a time of real and growing insecurity as tier 3 impacts my hospitality sector so devastatingly. It none the less remains a source of deep, deep personal regret that advantage has not been taken in the intervening period since we were here discussing this back before the summer for the Government to reach agreement across the whole of Government—not just within individual Departments—to take a decision that could have obviated the need for this debate. My view is that we need a national and universal summer holiday activity and food support stream to deal with the trials that have occurred. This would avoid any of the stigmatisation that I see in my constituency around eligibility for free school meals. It is essential that children retain a link with an outside body during the longer summer break when child neglect as well as food poverty increase. Such a scheme would also diminish the risk of them losing some of the learning that they have acquired during the academic year.
The policy chief of the Leader of the Opposition, Claire Ainsley, observed, in her previous role with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, that strong families able to withstand the shocks of personal change and external pressures such as job loss are vital. She was clear, as I am, that strong families matter. She also wants to see a return of a sense of agency and autonomy to the lives of some of the most disadvantaged in society—people who have had their ability to make choices about how their lives are structured taken away from them by systems that they have not designed. I am talking about choices that we here take for granted.
I am not convinced that the model on the Order Paper today is the right one. I am not sure that it returns that sense of agency and autonomy that I seek. Politics is not something that we do to people; it is something that we do with people. We need to make much more   strategic use of Opposition day debates, rather than have the partisan squabbling that we tend to see. I have had 10 years here now. I have yet to see a single Opposition day debate illuminate an issue rather than obscure it further. I am not sure that it is the greatest use of the time that we have in this House—time that is very, very restricted these days.
For all that, the Government must move much more quickly to fill what has now become a policy vacuum and turn the thinking that I know is occurring within Departments into something much more concrete than they argue for—whether it be the spending review, the comprehensive spending review, the autumn fiscal event, or whatever season’s fiscal event it might be. The next time we have big announcements I have big hopes and expectations of what the Government will deliver.

Neil Coyle: In 2010, the incoming Conservative Prime Minister promised to fix what he termed “broken Britain”. A decade later, we are having a debate about whether or not children go hungry next week and I have to run a food bank from my constituency office. When Labour left office, 40,000 were using food banks, last year it was 1.4 million people, 7,000 of whom were in Southwark, including hundreds of working people.
My constituency is at heart of London. It may be the capital city of the fifth wealthiest nation on the planet, but in some wards child poverty is as high as 40%. It was the coalition who scrapped the proper measurement of poverty and then scrapped the previous Labour Government’s statutory commitment to end child poverty by this year—by 2020. Today’s debate shows the impact of that downgrade of the need to tackle child poverty. It was not just a downgrade, but a direct exacerbation of the problem directly imposed by Government policies. The Secretary State waxed lyrical about universal credit with its perverse and catastrophic five-week delay, but the Government’s own statistics show that, this year, more than 200,000 people who applied for universal credit were paid after five weeks. A third of the applicants got nothing and others have been forced to take out a loan from the Department for Work and Pensions, totalling now almost £1 billion. People sought help, but all they were given was debt and no recourse to public funds, which was a condition imposed on some people, but which leaves children growing up without access to the same support as the kid they were born next to at St Thomas’s Hospital and sit next to at St Saviour’s school. The Children’s Society tells us that there are 175,000 children in that position. The Home Office refused to release the figure, even though the Prime Minister promised that he would. I ask Members to contrast that pernicious national Government approach of state-sponsored food poverty with a willingness to help elsewhere.
I am proud of the efforts of my local Labour council to tackle food poverty, providing free healthy school meals for all primary school children since 2011. There are 59 members of the Southwark Food Action Alliance, including the council and faith groups such as the Salvation Army, and even private companies such as Engie and British Land understand that there is a problem. There are also some great local charities such as the Central Southwark Community Hub under Felicia  Boshorin’s brilliant leadership, which has fed 2,300 families since April alone, Time & Talents has an amazing team under Sarah Gibb and Pecan, the Southwark food bank, which, last year, fed more than 2,400 children.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about how the voluntary sector, individuals and local councils have stood up and filled the enormous gap left by the Government. I pay tribute to the Lunch Bunch in Woodley in my constituency of Reading East, to a range of other local charities, including Sadaka and Whitley Community Development Association, and to Reading Borough Council for its work. When will the Government stand up and play their part?

Neil Coyle: I am glad that my hon. Friend’s constituency has organisations like those in mine.
Organisations have popped up in response to covid, such as the mutual aid groups, and existing organisations such as Burgess Sports and Pembroke House have extended their activities to help feed families. They all deserve community gratitude, but they have worked so hard because the Government have created and then ignored the need for help—a Government headed by a man who apparently cries himself to sleep because he is now receiving only £150,000 a year. Well, boo hoo!
I want to end by talking about a real injustice. This year, children have largely, thankfully, escaped the worst health effects of covid, but they have not been spared the economic impact on their parents. In Bermondsey and Old Southwark, unemployment has jumped by 5,000, many parents are still prevented from working and we face the cliff edge of the end of the furlough scheme, which has helped 24,000 people in my constituency alone. Children feel the injustice of that situation. The Government have a genuine chance to act today—mindful, I hope, of the 300,000-and-growing signatures on Marcus Rashford’s petition.
I will finish by quoting Charles Dickens, who, of course, lived in Southwark. In the 1860s, he wrote “Great Expectations”, in which he said:
“In the little world in which children have their existence, there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt as injustice.”
It is injustice that we vote on today. MPs can allow an injustice to occur or we can vote to prevent an injustice from being done to children, through no fault of their own. I know how I will be voting—I will be voting to end injustice.

Tom Randall: Free school meals have been part of the education system for more than a century, and they are and have always been intended to be an additional support on school days in term time. Lockdown disrupted education in a way that we probably have not seen since the war. The lines between school, home and education became blurred and, in those extraordinary circumstances, it was right to temporarily amend the rules on school meal provision so that those who would have received a meal, had school been open in the usual way, did not miss out.
But as I understand it, this motion is proposing something entirely different: it does not extend the system, but changes the very basis on which support  might be offered. Schools are now open and those in receipt of free school meals will receive one at school. Indeed, the proposal in the motion was rejected by the Labour Government when it was made in 2007. This change might be desirable; it could make a difference. But I suggest that any such proposal should be considered not on its own, but as part of wider efforts to combat poverty.
We are definitely facing a period of economic hardship, and the welfare system has rightly been strengthened. I welcome, for example, the cash injection of £9,000 million into our welfare system and I particularly welcome the increase by £858,000 to Nottinghamshire as its part of the local authority welfare assistance fund. I further welcome changes such as the national living wage and the raising of the income tax threshold so that those on the lowest incomes pay no income tax at all—policies of practical benefit to the poorest in society.
I am a little unclear about how the Opposition’s proposals will work in practice. Should schools be reopened at a time when they would normally be closed? Is there a desire among staff who have worked so hard recently to take on this additional responsibility? What will be the additional costs and who will pick them up?
I also hear from the Opposition Benches the name of Marcus Rashford being invoked. But according to his tweet of 18 October, Mr Rashford is calling for school meal provision in all holidays. Is it that the Opposition motion does not agree with Mr Rashford but is attempting to catch his coat tails or do the Opposition secretly agree with him but are too coy to say it at the moment?
There are big questions to answer when it comes to tackling poverty and I do not believe that changes should be made lightly. But I do accept that there is far more to do, including targeted interventions for those most in need. For the reasons I have given, I regret that I cannot support the motion in its unamended form today. The Labour party might believe that the motion scores a moral victory, but I believe that it fails to address many fundamental issues, and the responsibility for addressing those issues now falls to the Government side of the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am sure that colleagues can see from the call list that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.

Barry Gardiner: This debate is about priorities and it is about shame—the shame that, in the fifth richest country in the world, 30% of our children, which is 4.2 million of them, are living in poverty by the Government’s official statistics. Before the summer, Marcus Rashford publicly shamed the Government and won free school meals over the holidays. He spoke from the heart about his experience as a child when he was dependent on food banks.
The Prime Minister now says that it is not the role of schools to provide food during the holidays. Child hunger may not be a priority for him, but it is a priority for the headteachers of my schools in Brent who have  emailed me in the past 24 hours with their heartfelt experiences. Perhaps they will shame the Prime Minister once again.
Rebecca Curtis, principal of ARK Elvin Academy, said:
“In Lockdown we had children calling the school explaining they were hungry and asking what we could do—as soon as we were able to issue the FSM vouchers we were flooded with thanks from our children and their parents. The situation with unemployment in Brent is clearly so much worse now so we are really concerned about how we can support our pupils through the half term and the Christmas holidays”.
James Simmons, the head of Oliver Goldsmith Primary School, observed:
“Families with multiple children were able to purchase food in bigger quantities to take advantage of offers. With stress for families trying to feed children greatly reduced, they described the access to FSM as a lifeline.”
Mrs Mistry at Sudbury Primary School said that she
“strongly believes that FSM should be provided,”
but cautioned that,
“The government needs to implement a scheme that is easily manageable by schools”.
Karen Giles, the head at Barham Primary School, made the point that,
“Many families have had their income cut by two thirds or more and many children are going hungry. Schools need Free School Meals to be directly funded and the criteria for eligibility should be less stringent.”
Mr Farrington, the head of the Village School, warned:
“There is very limited provision for pupils with disabilities over the holidays and we fear many won’t receive adequate food and support. We are also aware that parents, carers and families are putting themselves in more debt and that providing for their children has had a large impact on the mental health of our families.”
Finally, Raphael Moss, the head of Elsley Primary School, wrote that the
“government paying for FSM during holidays should be an absolute minimum. What is really needed is to widen the eligibility for children whose families are in receipt of Universal Credit as Marcus Rashford is campaigning for. At Elsley we had to set up a food bank to support some of our families. I cannot believe that as a Head teacher in London in 2020 I am overseeing a food bank to ensure that our children don’t go hungry. It is truly unbelievable.”
Well, it is truly unbelievable, but the Government have the opportunity to put it right.
It is not just about extending the voucher scheme, however. Today, five senior children’s charities published an analysis showing that even before coronavirus, local authorities were struggling to fund the need for children’s services. They say:
“Those in the most deprived communities have suffered the greatest reductions in spending power. Funding for services for the 20% most deprived Local Authorities has fallen more than twice as fast as for the least”.
My borough of Brent has lost £174 million since 2010.
A recent National Audit Office report on bounce back loans found that, to support business, the Government underwrote more than £36 billion of loans in the full knowledge and acceptance that between 30% and 60% of that would have to be written off as unrepayable or even fraudulent. That is between £11 billion and £20 billion of public money wasted, yet the Government baulk at  spending another £10 million—million—on our children. This is about priorities and it is about shame. If those are the Minister’s priorities, he should be ashamed.

Jo Gideon: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, not just as the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central or the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the national food strategy, but as someone who is disappointed and saddened by the divisive nature of the debate. There is no need for today’s point-scoring motion—a sticking plaster, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) called it—which will no doubt cause unnecessary concern for our constituents. A consensus exists between hon. Members on both sides of the House that one child hungry is one too many. Any suggestion that an hon. Member would think otherwise is deeply offensive.
The coronavirus restrictions introduced in March this year presented a challenge as the boundaries between our public services and our private lives became blurred. This Government rightly listened to public opinion and acted by extending the provision of free school meals over the summer holidays at a time when we were facing school closures. However, we are now in a very different position. With schools and classrooms now in session, it is only right that the exceptional measures introduced at the height of this pandemic come to an end. Instead, we must have a constructive debate considering the longer-term and most sustainable solutions to tackling this problem.

Miriam Cates: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree with me that the very fact that we have reopened schools—99% of state schools are now open—shows just how committed this Government are to tackling child poverty, because saving our children’s education and catching children up where they have fallen behind is the No. 1 thing we can do to help bring people out of poverty?

Jo Gideon: I thank my hon. Friend, and I absolutely agree with what she says.
There is no question about it: there is a problem, but headlines do not help these children and their families, and the sticking plaster this motion calls for would be woefully inadequate. Before the pandemic, the Government commissioned an independent and comprehensive review of our entire food system from field to fork. The national food strategy review now being conducted is a top-to-bottom examination, and it will publish long-term and sustainable recommendations that will inform Government strategy on some of the biggest challenges to improving the health of our nation. As chairman of the APPG on the national food strategy, I am determined to work cross-party to develop support for more comprehensive, more fundamental and more long-term solutions. The work of the group will be integral to developing these proposals and it will help inform the White Paper. Addressing the issues of child obesity, malnutrition and food poverty is central to the levelling-up agenda. As with many aspects of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, outcomes cannot be delivered overnight.

Wera Hobhouse: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, because I think this is a very important issue and she is talking about cross-party support. The fruit and veg scheme is such an important scheme. Will she look at the campaign by Sustain of having a healthy piece of fruit or vegetable for every primary schoolchild in state education?

Jo Gideon: I thank the hon. Lady and, absolutely, we will be looking at this very broadly. That is the mandate and, quite frankly, I think that is what we should be talking about today.
As I was saying, addressing the issues of child obesity, malnutrition and food poverty is completely central to the agenda and it cannot be done overnight. I stood on a platform that a society is best judged by how it looks after its most vulnerable. This Government have shown throughout this pandemic that they are committed to supporting the most vulnerable in our society. The temporary and exceptional measure put in place at the height of this pandemic is not a sustainable solution. Rather than the Opposition bringing this same old question to the House every time we face a school holiday, they should work with us towards a long-term solution and a wraparound-support approach for low-income families.
For the reasons I have outlined, I will not be supporting this motion, but instead I call on those who truly wish to tackle the issue of food poverty long term to work with me in developing solutions for the benefit of those children and families we all seek to help.

Rosie Winterton: Order. May I gently point out that taking interventions has now meant that one fewer person can speak who had put in to speak and who has been sitting here all afternoon? If colleagues want to take interventions, I suggest that they take them out of the three minutes that I have allocated, because taking five minutes means that somebody else is probably unlikely to get into the debate.

Danny Kruger: I want to agree with two things that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), said in her speech. The first is that no child should go hungry in this country. That is something that we all agree with in this House. The question is how we can ensure that outcome?
Before I was a Member of this House, I ran a charity working with children and families at risk, and I did a lot of work with schools, and I recognise that there is an important role for schools to facilitate social support for children and families. They can play an important role as a hub in the local community, as has been said, but it is not appropriate to make them a provider of welfare themselves. As we have heard from the shadow Secretary of State, there is a possibility of the proposal becoming permanent. That is not an appropriate use of schools. Now that schools are open again, it is not appropriate to make them welfare providers. That is a role for the welfare system. I pay tribute to the DWP and to the Ministers who have overseen universal credit. That system has been a great success, and without it we would be in a very serious way, That is the appropriate mechanism for delivering welfare to families.
More can be done and, of course, more is being done by the Government. We have seen a £20 a week uplift to universal credit, which will run through half-term, through Christmas and into next year. Free school meals are available for families with no recourse to public funds and, of course, extra money has been made available for local authorities to provide welfare to families, including £500,000 for my local authority in Wiltshire, which is very welcome. No doubt more can be done, and I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) in calling for a comprehensive strategy to support families and children during the school holidays. That is an absolutely pressing need, and we need to get it right.
My second point of agreement with the shadow Secretary of State is on putting aside party politics. She then went on to make one of the most partisan speeches I have heard in my short time in this House, with references to test and trace, consultants and even the Prime Minister’s personal finances, which is pretty unnecessary.
I will talk quickly about the motivation behind this debate and of Members in this House. I hope we can agree that rudeness of the sort we saw earlier from the Opposition Front Bench is completely unacceptable. I do not think robust language is unacceptable. It is quite appropriate to use robust language—we should not bleed these debates of any emotion—and it is completely acceptable and understandable if Opposition Members want to attack the Government on their competence. I do not agree, but it is fair enough to attack us on our judgment.
Obviously, mistakes get made, which is understandable; but to attack us on our motivation and our morality, as we repeatedly hear from Opposition Members, is completely unacceptable, because it demeans this House and the quality of debate. It does not serve the people of this country. I ask Opposition Members to desist from that, to keep the debate on policy and to stop the trolling they are engaged in at the moment.

Suzanne Webb: Listening to all the contributions, it is clear we are all committed to ensuring that no child should go hungry, that no child should worry about when they are going to eat next and that children have the support and opportunities to succeed.
Even before covid-19 infected our lives, this Government’s support for children was significant: delivering a world-class education; ensuring children have the skills to succeed; and ensuring children have a nutritious lunchtime meal to support their learning, concentration and ability to achieve at school. The support during coronavirus has been unprecedented. The Government ensured that no child was left behind while schools were closed, by providing substantial additional funding to eligible families through the national voucher scheme.
The total amount of supermarket vouchers redeemed by families was over £380 million. Alongside the income-protection schemes, which have so far protected 12 million jobs, the Government have provided £63 million in welfare assistance funding to local authorities to support families with urgent needs.
I will take no lectures from a Labour party that wants a full national lockdown, which would be disastrous—a party that will not work collectively at a time of national  crisis; a party that politicises a national crisis; a party that, in this great place, calls my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) scum; a party that itself, when in government, refused to extend free school meals into the holidays.
We are in danger of viewing everything through the lens of covid-19. We need to look beyond that. How we treat our most vulnerable reflects on all of us, as does ensuring that the ladder of opportunity is one that everyone can climb. We all have an important collective role in helping to address the underlying causes of child poverty. A rounded approach to tackling child poverty will take children from their earliest years through schooling to adolescence and adult life, and not just react when there is a crisis. Every family turned around means more children in school and more parents in work.
If there is a vote, as I am sure there will be, I will not be voting for a Labour motion that is just one more action by those intent on undermining and derailing the response to this national crisis with yet another strapline. Instead, I will support a Government who I know are determined and committed to ensuring that families continue to have the support that they need, and not just during this crisis—a Government who listen and, I am sure, will take on board all comments made this evening on tackling child poverty. This is a Government who have during this crisis delivered an unprecedented set of measures to ensure that no child was left behind while schools were closed—a Government who will always provide a safety net, and not just at a time of national crisis, to ensure that those who need it most are supported unquestionably.

Ian Byrne: I pay tribute to Marcus Rashford for his incredible campaigning on this issue, which meant that 1.3 million children were able to receive meals over the summer. The unbelievable prospect of a Manchester United player having his name sung on my beloved Spion Kop at Anfield would now not be beyond the realms of possibility. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for her School Breakfast Bill and her tireless efforts to get it through Parliament.
The crisis of food insecurity is having a devastating impact in my community. In August, 2.3 million children were living in households that experienced food insecurity. In Liverpool, West Derby, figures show that even before the covid-19 pandemic 37% of children were living in poverty. If the Government do not provide free school meals over the school holidays, 4,155 children in Liverpool, West Derby will be at risk of going hungry in the middle of winter and in the middle of a pandemic.
As someone who received free school meals as a child and who serves as a school governor in one of the most impoverished wards in the country, I can say from first-hand experience that the difference that passing this motion would make to struggling families cannot be quantified in sheer monetary terms. The mental pressures of worrying about whether your child will have a hot meal a day should not be experienced by any citizen in our nation.
The fact that we have to hold this debate today, and that we have to ask the Government for such a vital provision as free school meals, is quite frankly shocking given the scale of food insecurity in this country right now. Ensuring that millions of our fellow citizens do not go hungry is the Government’s moral duty, and it should be a legal right. As I did in my Westminster Hall debate this morning, I call on the Government to introduce the right to food into UK legislation. That would oblige the Government to make sure that people do not ever go hungry and would mean that measures such as the five-week universal credit delay or the refusal to provide free school meals would be subject to legal challenge. The Prime Minister would not be able to refuse to provide meals to children living in poverty.
I will end by urging the Minister to think again and to support this motion.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State has already said and commend the support for children and their families that he outlined. Free school meals have only ever been intended to support pupils during term time and it is important that that arrangement returns.
On the proposals made today, why did colleagues on the Opposition Benches never implement any of them under the Labour Government? We need sensible policies to combat child poverty, not policy by public relations. As a former teacher and head, I have seen many cases in which children are the victims of neglect, and the extra care that we can provide through schools is sometimes life-changing, but it will never replace the role of the parent. When did it suddenly become controversial to suggest that the primary responsibility for a child’s welfare should lie with their parents, or to suggest that people do not always spend vouchers in the way they are intended?
I will share my own experience. My parents separated when I was 11 years old and at one point I had to share a room with my father at my grandmother’s house. I qualified for free school meals, so I have experienced this myself. However, I never considered myself to be a child with a single parent: both parents cared, both parents worked and both parents did their best to provide for their children. Like many, they realised that parental responsibility does not end when a relationship does.
We must focus on breaking the cycle in which the first reaction is to look to the state. It is a vicious circle. We need to support families with early intervention and help with things such as budgeting and employment. Collect and pay arrangements with the Child Maintenance Service show that only 60% of parents make payments—they are not necessarily adequate payments, as the figures are for people who pay anything at all—which leaves 40% who pay nothing. That is a disgrace. There are parents out there doing their best to manage under very difficult circumstances, while there are fathers and, indeed, mothers who disappear and think they can be absolved of all responsibility. This is not just immoral but means that many hard-working parents have to struggle and support their children on their own. The welfare state is rightly there as a safety net, but it is not  a replacement. I have spoken to parents in Bassetlaw  who have been left without support for years. We need  to track these people down and make them contribute towards their children’s welfare. Where is the slick PR campaign encouraging absent parents to take some responsibility for their children? I do not believe in nationalising children. Instead, we need to get back to the idea of taking responsibility. That means less celebrity virtue signalling on Twitter by proxy and more action to tackle the real causes of child poverty.

Daisy Cooper: The Secretary of State gave us a spectacular display of number theatre: millions for this, millions for that, billions for this, billions for that. There is no doubt that the Government are facing unprecedented demands for money from all sorts of directions, but I simply do not understand why they draw the red line at hungry children.
I feel ashamed to be an MP today and I feel ashamed of this debate. While we throw mud at each other from the security of these plush green Benches, there are millions of families who do not know where they are going to find the £30 or £40 to feed their kids next week in half-term and have no idea at all where the money is going to come from to feed their kids at Christmas. Even if we agreed the extension of free school meals in school holidays until Easter, there would still be families who struggle. There would still be families claiming universal credit who would not qualify. We need to look again at the eligibility criteria.

Layla Moran: Does my hon. Friend feel, as I do, that the Government could learn a lot from the Welsh Government, where Kirsty Williams, the Liberal Democrat Education Minister, extended free school meals, and that this should actually just be a no-brainer today?

Daisy Cooper: My hon. Friend anticipates my very next point. It was the Liberal party that first introduced free school meals, in 1906. It was the Liberal Democrats in Government who introduced free school meals for 1.89 million infant children. In Wales last week, Liberal Democrat Education Minister Kirsty Williams led the way by agreeing to extend the scheme until Easter next year. Scotland has followed suit. Now it is England’s turn. Why should children in England go hungry when children in Scotland and Wales will have access to support in the coming holidays?
There are colleagues on the Government Benches who have called on us to work with them on a long-term food strategy. We are happy to do that. This debate today does not stop us looking at long-term solutions. But half-term starts in just a few days’ time, and we need to give immediate reassurance to a nation of families who are lying awake at night. I urge every Member of this House to please consider providing that immediate reassurance tonight.

Kieran Mullan: I welcome this debate today, as it gives us an opportunity to have a discussion on challenging issues around poverty in our constituencies. The causes of poverty are not simple. What is most important is sustainable solutions. Increases in the living wage, increases in the income tax threshold, decreases in absolute poverty and income inequality in the long term—those are the sustainable,  long-term achievements of this Government. Have we solved everything? No. Could we all—individuals, communities, millionaire celebrities and supermarkets—have a role to play in doing more? Yes. But to pretend that further increasing the role of the state directly in feeding children is a solution is mistaken. Yet again, it sends out the signal that our communities do not have to look after each other.
Again and again, we reinforce the idea that taking money off people through the tax system to support people less well off is always good, but asking people to choose to be generous and support other people in their communities in need is somehow bad. I want to live in a society where our local communities look out for each other and provide support to those who are less well off. I am incredibly proud of the hard work and effort put in by local charities in my constituency that, with help from donations and support from local people and local businesses, support those in need. The Government do have a role to play, but our communities play a role, too. What is so wrong with that?

Danny Kruger: Does my hon. Friend agree that the charities he is talking about are able to be much more targeted, precise, sensitive and generous than a blanket state system?

Kieran Mullan: Indeed, and they tend to provide support in a wraparound way. Rather than just giving out a meal, it tends to be part of a broader package of support for a family that tackles things in the longer term.
Why is it that when the state tackles a problem using taxpayers’ money—our money—indirectly, it is always the right solution, but when people choose to help solve a problem themselves directly, it must be a reflection of some kind of failure? The reality is that those on the Opposition Benches are advocating for us to live in a world where the state caters to every need and every challenge and mitigates every consequence. That is the logical conclusion of what they argue. That is not the kind of country I want to live in, where generosity of spirit, kindness and support for our neighbours are somehow surplus to requirements.
I ask high-profile campaigners on this issue to urge their hundreds of thousands of social media followers, who are signing petitions and retweeting, to put an equal amount of energy into encouraging their friends and family to volunteer for charities, to mentor young people, to help parents who are struggling and to donate money to local organisations to fight poverty. I want voices such as Courtney Lawes to be heard as widely as Marcus Rashford’s. The combined wealth of some of the individuals and businesses who think this can all be fixed with money means that they are very well placed to make that change themselves if they think it is necessary.
Do not tell me these problems only start and end with Government. The number of people living in relative poverty in the UK has been around 14 million for decades. I listened to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) throwing accusations such as “shameful” at us. He is no longer in his place, but where was he under the Labour Government, when there were also millions of people, including children, living in poverty? It was not “shameful” then, but apparently when it is the Conservative Government, it becomes shameful.
This Government have acted, and they have played a role. Yes, we need to keep these issues at the heart of the Government’s agenda, and yes, we need to understand the impact of poverty and combat it, but our whole society has a role to play in contributing and helping one another to build lives, livelihoods and families and provide long-term solutions to these challenges.

Catherine West: I put on record my thanks to Marcus Rashford for an excellent goal last night, but also for supporting this fantastic campaign. In this House, we need to realise what we are facing. We are in denial. Our economy has contracted by 9% since March. In my constituency, unemployment has gone up by 182%. Even in one of my very affluent wards in Muswell Hill, there has been a 300% increase in unemployment since the spring.
We are dealing with the biggest recession since the first world war, so some of the arguments today pale into insignificance when compared with the enormity of the economic challenge we face. It is therefore correct to look at quick measures such as this, when normally we would take a strategic view, go through a Select Committee, get evidence and so on. This is an opportunity to act quickly. While we are at it, let us have some good and high-level sports coaching, some arts and crafts, and some of the other things that our families rely on desperately over the half-term break and also during the Christmas holidays.
Our families are under enormous pressure, whether that is before school at breakfast—I am a big believer in breakfast clubs—or after school, because some shifts carry on after 3 o’clock and need to be worked. Let us bring back lots of clubs, because many have stopped because of coronavirus. Also, let us look at increasing the eligibility. I introduced universal free meals for all children in primary school when I was a borough leader. I did that because I felt it was the one public health measure that would make a huge difference. That is not the subject of today’s debate, but it did bring up everyone in the same way and meant every child had a hot meal. The youngsters learned how to use a knife and fork and how to have a conversation with their teachers.
An analysis of packed lunches shows that custard creams and Diet Coke are the most popular thing for kids who have packed lunches. In all sorts of different families, that tends to be the choice, whereas a hot meal in the middle of the day increases good behaviour and helps after school. If we can bring families with no recourse to public funds into the net, it would be fantastic, because it would mean no more popping into the office for someone to explain their circumstances to a judgmental secretary or another judgmental person who might be opposite them. Some parents have shared with me that they feel a sense of stigma going on and off school meals. I will stop there, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that we can hear more speakers.

David Simmonds: I doubt anyone in the Chamber tonight would disagree that we must focus the resources of the nation on those who need help most, but whatever the question is before us, it requires a degree of objectivity and  evidence in our decision making. Both of those things have been conspicuously lacking in the Opposition’s approach tonight.
Let us consider for a moment the circumstances of the most vulnerable children in our country. There are around 400,000 children on the statutory children in need registers of our local authorities and 52,300 children on child protection plans. We all recognise that they are the most vulnerable, and they are in a system that we all recognise is facing a significant funding gap. What does it say about the Opposition’s priorities that all their interests are simply swept aside in favour of spending taxpayers’ money to curry favour with celebrity status, wealth and power? I have no doubt that Mr Rashford is an expert in his own experience, but we should not forget that the experiences he so movingly described took place under a Labour Government—a Labour Government then supposedly at the peak of their powers in tackling child poverty in this country. So if there was a lamentable failure, it was a lamentable failure of the Labour party when in Government.
The beneficiaries of the earlier free school meals decision, which, of course, went way beyond anything ever done by Labour, at least had recourse to a variety of support. We had universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance, emergency support from local authorities and even, dare I mention it, food banks. But we talk about the need to tackle food poverty in this country, and of course, this debate is happening at a time when the cost of food to British families is at a historic low—8% of household expenditure on average, down from 35% in 1957, when my father was the age that my son is today. If that is not a strategy to tackle food poverty, I do not know what is.
I know that the Opposition do not like to waste a good crisis, but this House should be ashamed if we allow ourselves today to be pushed into setting aside the circumstances of the most needy. Neglect, domestic violence, addiction and family breakdown are the major drivers of that need. They must not be put aside in favour of currying the favour of the wealthy and powerful and celebrities.

Dean Russell: Any debate discussing children is rightly emotive. We must protect them, we must nurture them and we must support them. The question is: how do we do that most effectively? In this debate, we have heard highly charged arguments, which, if listened to in isolation, without reference to the actual facts, would cause any of us to fear for the next generation. But as my namesake, the philosopher Bertrand Russell, once stated:
“The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts.”
The real facts are that throughout this pandemic, this Government have been actively supporting vulnerable children, doing the right thing at the right time. At the start of the pandemic, it was right that unprecedented measures on free school meals were taken. In that time, children’s lives were blurred between home and school, but now schools have opened back up fully to all pupils and more targeted support can be provided.
Let us not forget the facts of this debate. First, we are not ending free school meals. We are returning to the way that it has always been under successive Governments,  yet we are also providing an ever more focused approach to support, so that we can reach every child who needs a helping hand. I am conscious in these debates—especially ones such as this—that there can be number fatigue, with statistics and billions thrown here and there, but the facts are the facts, and it is this Government who have increased universal credit by £1,000 this year for families and delivered £63 million in additional funding for councils to provide emergency assistance to families with food essentials and meals. We strengthened welfare support, adding £9 billion into the welfare system this year, not to mention the billions in furlough schemes, business support and a multitude of other packages to charities, individuals and families to help them to put food on tables across the country. I could go on, but the facts are the facts. To round off my speech with one more quotation, as Aldous Huxley once stated:
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
The facts are that the Government have been ensuring targeted support for vulnerable children, both now and into the future, ensuring that the right support reaches the right children at the right time.

Liz Twist: This is a hugely important debate for many families in my constituency and across the north-east and the country. I applaud Marcus Rashford for his hard work in raising this issue. Data from the North East Child Poverty Commission shows that almost 93,000 children and young people across the north-east were in receipt of free school meals in the last academic year, 2019-20. However, these figures do not take into account the full impact—indeed, hardly any of the impact—of covid-19 on family incomes and the number of families who have registered for such support in recent weeks.
In fact, the Food Foundation recently published an estimate that more than 900,000 children have signed up for free school meals for the first time this year. Over 50% of those using Trussell Trust food banks at the start of the pandemic had never needed help from a food bank before, and families with children were the hardest hit, accounting for nearly two in five of the households needing to use a food bank. These are staggering numbers. We talked earlier about universal credit being a help, but so many people are finding for the first time that universal credit is really poor and does not help those most in need, especially those applying for the first time, who might have expected help.
We know from the North East Child Poverty Commission’s figures that more than one in three children and young people grow up in poverty in the north-east and that the north-east has the highest proportion of children in receipt of free school meals. In Gateshead, there were 6,135 students in receipt of free school meals before the covid-19 pandemic. That is 20% of pupils, and that number cannot help but go up in the coming months, as we see the impact of job losses, short-time working and so forth. We know that the covid-19 pandemic will have a huge impact.
During the summer, I had the privilege of visiting some of the holiday hunger schemes and activities in my constituency. I saw at first hand how well appreciated the free lunches and free school meals were in those activities, so I know the difference that they can make.   Of course the Government must continue to fund free school meal provision in every school holiday between October half-term and Easter 2021 and extend the offer of free school meals to all families receiving universal credit and those with no recourse to public funds. However, we have to do more than that in the face of this crisis, with rising costs and unemployment, and millions of families falling into poverty.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). We spent time on the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we agree on much. I also agreed with much that the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. She was my predecessor as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, so we share many of the concerns that have been raised in this debate.
However, I listened very carefully to what the shadow Secretary of State said, and at one point she said—I hope I do not get this wrong—that it is the Government’s job to make sure children do not go hungry. I differ there, and I think lots of my constituents differ there too, because they would be appalled by the prospect of the Government interfering in their daily lives to make sure their children did not go hungry. Many in this House will be aware that I had a slight fall-out in the Twittersphere with Marcus Rashford a couple of weeks ago on this issue, which is why I wanted to speak today. When somebody said something similar to me on Twitter, I simply tweeted:
“Where they can, it’s a parent’s job to feed their children”.
I noticed that the shadow Secretary of State did not include the caveat “where they can”, and that is the key difference here. It needs—

Wes Streeting: Oh, for God’s sake.

Kevin Hollinrake: That is what she did not say, and it is a very important principle.
The other important principle is whether the measures that the shadow Secretary of State is proposing are temporary or permanent. Temporary measures in this place tend to become permanent. These are exceptional times, but I can see the outcry in a year or two when we try to reverse these measures: “Oh my God, you can’t do that because of the impact it might have on people.” These measures may well then become permanent, and, if we are honest, what would that mean? It would mean increasing the size of the welfare state and therefore increasing taxation.
Even before covid, we were running a deficit and had done for the vast majority of the last 40 years, so such a measure would mean higher taxes. The alternative, of course, is that we spread a load of welfare among many more people, which will mean that less will go to the people who are really in need. That is the principle we are talking about—whether we are going to target these resources to the people who are really, really in need or whether we are going to spread it more widely. We need to include the taxpayer in this conversation and say to them, “If we are going to increase welfare, you are going to carry the burden.” If we are going to say that people, we should also be saying to people that we are going to clamp down on tax avoidance, which is a stain  on the way we handle our tax system. Whether it is multinationals or individuals in the UK who try to avoid tax through things such as image rights, we need to ensure that people pay a fair share of their taxes.

Charlotte Nichols: Coronavirus has blown away many of the old orthodoxies in politics, and this offensive idea of the undeserving poor—feckless parents unwilling to take responsibility—to which the Conservative party seems so ideologically committed just does not hold water. The universal credit system was barely fit for purpose before covid, but it is now on its knees, with parents being made redundant, their hours slashed, and the support system set up for businesses forced to close, leaving people on as little as 66% of the national minimum wage. Others, including those excluded because they were new starters, have been left with nothing. If parents could pull themselves up by their bootstraps before, they certainly cannot now—and their children cannot either.
I pay tribute to the work of Warrington food bank, the Station House food bank, Friends of Meadowside, and the numerous other voluntary groups across our community in Warrington North, who are doing all they can to ensure that no child goes hungry. But there are almost 4,500 children eligible for free school meals in my constituency, many of whom are vulnerable to falling through the cracks. These are families in every single ward of my constituency, from the inner wards, which have the highest rates of deprivation, to the affluent suburbs. All of them have been using food banks—every single ward. The Government can make a choice today to strengthen that safety net and ensure that no child in Warrington goes hungry.
In financial terms, this is a small ask, but it is a vital one in these exceptional times. If the Government can find the money to pay Serco, they can find the money to ensure that the most vulnerable children in our communities are not going to bed hungry.

Rosie Winterton: I call Miriam Cates, who may wish to make a slightly shorter speech given that she made quite a long intervention earlier; that would allow others to come in.

Miriam Cates: I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The motion calls on the Government to extend free school meal provision throughout the school holidays until Easter next year. Although on the Order Paper this is a debate about free school meals, even if the motion passes, the result will not be more free school meals. To risk stating the obvious, during the holidays schools are closed, and they do not provide physical meals—free or otherwise—to any child. Let us be clear: what is really being called for here is an extension to the voucher scheme that would start in half-term next week by giving supermarket vouchers to parents of children who are eligible. That is not the same as providing a daily nutritious meal to a child in a school environment to help them get the most out of their education. It is important to recognise the difference between free school meals and what they are for, and supermarket vouchers.
The initial supermarket voucher scheme was set up in March and was not an attempt to solve child poverty, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) rightly pointed out, is a matter for the welfare system, not our schools. No one denies that child, and therefore family, poverty does exist, or that we should be doing everything that we can to bring people out of it—I will talk about that more in a moment—but the initial voucher scheme was a practical, administrative response to the unforeseen necessity of closing schools for an indeterminate period. No one suggested at the time that it was anything other than a temporary measure.
The truth is that far too many families do not have enough. They do not have enough money, enough food or enough help. There are many and complex reasons for that, and, sadly, to suggest that supermarket vouchers will somehow fix it is like putting a sticking plaster on a serious wound. But what will work? When the welfare state was launched, the vision was to provide a safety net for those who found themselves out of work and to help them get back on their feet, but now we find ourselves in a position—pre-covid, anyway—where far more of our welfare budget is spent on those in work than those out of work. In other words, at present, work is not always the route out of poverty that it should be.
How do we help people into better paid and secure work, and away from the addiction, the family breakdown and the social issues that all too often trap people in poverty? Education is part of the answer, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary for the catch-up schemes, but research shows that the barriers to good work are not just material or educational poverty; lack of social, relational capital prevents many people from finding a way out.
There is no time for me to say more, but I recommend that hon. Members read the work of Hilary Cottam, whose book “Radical Help” proposes a very radical relational community approach to tackling poverty. These are the kinds of things that we should be debating in this House. Child poverty is a serious and complex issue; we need serious and complex solutions.

Rosie Winterton: Well, there we are. I call Mary Kelly Foy.

Mary Foy: As someone who personally benefited from free school meals as a child, I congratulate Marcus Rashford on his vital and selfless campaign. Between him and Andy Burnham, I do not think the Prime Minister will be setting foot in Manchester any time soon.
In a previous debate, I said that the Government’s initial U-turn on free school meals was a case of them having to be embarrassed into feeding hungry children. Well, it looks like the Conservatives have moved beyond that. They truly have no shame. What astounds me most about this Government’s approach is the complete lack of responsibility. They are acting like child poverty is purely the fault of the parents and ignoring the leading cause of child poverty: Tory Governments.
It is a fact that this Government have increased poverty. Before this pandemic, their own Social Mobility Commission stated that there are 600,000 more children  living in poverty in 2020 than there were in 2012. They cannot blame Labour for that. And let us not ignore the reality that holiday hunger hits the north-east the hardest. Not only does the region have the highest proportion of children in receipt of free school meals, but that number is rising at a faster rate than anywhere else. So much for levelling up.
The coronavirus pandemic and the Government’s incompetent handling of it will only make this crisis worse. Thousands of people will be experiencing poverty for the first time, through absolutely no fault of their own, yet the Government are going to deny them this small bit of help. Even if we ignore the argument that this Government have increased poverty over the last decade, it still does not change the fact that children do not choose to be born into poverty and they do not choose to go hungry during the holidays. Poverty is never the child’s fault. To punish them is as cruel as it is illogical.
The Government believe that it is right to feed these children when they are at school, so why not during the holidays? Poverty does not stop at the end of term. Are the Government planning to let impoverished children go hungry in order to teach them some sort of perverse lesson—to show them the realities of sink-or-swim Conservatism? If, as some Members claim, it is a question of not being able to afford to fund these £15-a-week lunches, I am sure we can make savings somewhere else, such as by cutting some of the £7,000 a day that consultants are being paid for working on the failing track and trace system. Personally, I would rather put food into the stomach of a hungry child than money into the pockets of wealthy consultants.
No matter how they try to justify it, if Government Members oppose the motion, they will be voting to let children go hungry, for no other reason than that they just do not care.

Tahir Ali: Over the last decade, we have seen a shocking increase in poverty levels in the UK. In particular, child poverty has risen significantly and should be seen in no uncertain terms as a national crisis. The causes of this increase in poverty are clear: a decade of damaging policies implemented by Conservative Governments who have taken income away from the poorest in our society and redistributed wealth upwards, making the rich even richer.
The scourge of child poverty is a disgrace to a society as rich as ours. In my constituency alone, 15,335 children live in poverty, and many of those children depend on free school meals so that they can go to school and receive the education they deserve. Across Birmingham, the number of pupils who rely on free school meals is higher than in many parts of the country, and that is due in no small part to the shocking levels of poverty that many families currently find themselves in. It is obvious that such poverty and the subsequent support needed by those families does not come to an end when the school term ends.
These measures are essential to families in my constituency who are facing the full force of lost income due to the pandemic and the resultant recession. I have received a great many messages from constituents urging action on free school meals. I, along with my constituents,  believe that extending free school meals over the school holidays for the period stated in the motion is the very least this Government can do to assist families in need.
More needs to be done to ensure that no child in my constituency or the country at large goes to school hungry. I want to take this opportunity to raise the recommendations made by School Food Matters, the Food Foundation and many others regarding free school meals. I believe it is necessary to extend free school meals for all children in families receiving universal credit and to extend the holiday activity and food programme to all areas in England, to ensure that summer holiday support is available to all children receiving free school meals. The Healthy Start vouchers also need to be increased.

Jonathan Gullis: Unfortunately, I will have to start by referring to the comments made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I have high regard for her, but I found her moral superiority quite distressing. I spent eight years of my life working as a secondary school teacher, the overwhelming majority of which was as a head of year, working in some of the most disadvantaged parts of London and Birmingham, seeing the impact of child poverty and child hunger but also of not having a stable family and good role models and of crime and drugs in a local community. I refuse to be lectured by Opposition Members who have not walked in my shoes and seen the things that I have had to witness in my career. I hope the hon. Lady will reflect on those remarks. [Interruption.] I will not be lectured by those on the shadow Front Bench who have not worked in the schools I have worked in or seen the things I have seen. I refuse to be shouted down and treated in this manner.
Let us be very clear about this extension. This is not a one-off extension—this is about free school meals being permanently provided outside of school time. First, who is going to fund that—the school or the state? Do schools provide the meals on-site, or do they have to deliver food parcels? If so, do they have to renegotiate their contracts? Have the unions supported that? Is there understanding of the voucher system, and are they being used in an appropriate and responsible manner? I have had supermarkets, parents and schools contact me directly to say that they have grave concerns about the way in which those vouchers have been used.
This Government have done remarkable work on holiday programmes. I want to mention the Hubb Foundation and its “Ay Up Duck” campaign, run by Carol Shanahan, the co-owner of Port Vale football club, and Adam Yates, a former professional footballer. The Hubb Foundation is providing thousands of meals across the city and providing hundreds of children and parents with the opportunity to participate in activities that not only improve their physical and mental health but ensure that they are fed and that the local authority and schools have health and wellbeing checks done on a regular basis over the holiday.
If we were to have a serious discussion about how to tackle this issue, one way to do that is to reduce the summer holiday from six weeks to four weeks. Childcare costs £133 a week on average. If we redistributed those two weeks, with one in the October half-term and one in the May half-term, we could bring down the cost of the  summer holiday for parents and help them to be better able to access the food that they need. Free school meals are indeed important, but it is the role of the school to educate, not to be the welfare state.

Naseem Shah: It is not often that I find myself really struggling to follow an hon. Member, but I am struggling to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). Let me tell him, and his Government. He is not taking lectures from the Labour Benches. But we have experience of poverty. Tell that to the 5,500 children in my constituency who are eligible for free school meals. Tell that to the Marcus Rashfords of this world who grew up in poverty. Tell me, who grew up in poverty. Tell Labour Members who have experienced it at first hand.

Jonathan Gullis: rose—

Naseem Shah: I will not take any lectures, and nor will I take any interventions, when it comes to children in poverty, from the Conservative Benches.
Yesterday, I spoke to the Trussell Trust and the truth is that we expect a 9% increase in children and families starting to use food banks, just because of the £20 cut to universal credit. In addition—wow; it is not often that I get this angry in the House—more than 16,000 of my constituents are on universal credit, yet Members on the Conservative Benches are happy to cut another £20 from that. Only 31% of people in my constituency are taking up the furlough scheme, and many of them will be thrown into poverty when that comes to an end. That figure of 16,000—the number of families affected—will go up day by day, as the virus hits us and people have to make a choice between putting food on their table and going to work, and having to isolate for 14 days. That is what real poverty is. I can speak from experience, having experienced poverty, so I will take no lectures from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North.
This is about morality. This is not a debate about whether it is food bank vouchers or free school meals; this is a debate about poverty. Which bit of that do Members of the House not get? This is about children who will not have a meal, or the sufficient nutrients to go to school or to go about their daily lives and be able to learn. That should be their God-given right. That is what every child in the country should have. We are a rich nation. If people live from food banks, what is the measure of our country? We have kids and families on food banks.
Let me thank all those in my constituency who volunteer at food banks, and who continuously try to plug the gap that 10 years of austerity and the failures of Members on the Conservative Benches and this Government, have left for people in my constituency and up and down the country. Shame on this Government! Shame on the people who are going to walk through that Lobby today and vote this motion down. I know exactly where my moral compass is, and it is on the right side of history.

Taiwo Owatemi: I completely agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) has just said.  I am saddened that we are talking about free school meals as if they are a luxury. They are not a luxury. I was on free school meals—[Interruption.] No, it is not an option; let’s be honest. I was on free school meals, and I know how important they were for me and my family. On many mornings I had to rush into school, and I was provided with breakfast, lunch and a snack. That gave me the opportunity to focus, study and learn, and to be here today. So I am really saddened that this is what we are here to talk about.
What kind of nation will we be if a single mother from Spon End in my constituency, who struggles to make ends meet due to the minimum wage, has to decide between paying an electricity bill, or paying her rent, and whether her family will have dinner that night? What kind of nation do we want to be, if elected Members of this House, who are in Parliament to represent their constituents and ensure they have the best opportunities in life, can be so callous as to treat the ability of hard- working families from deprived areas to feed their children as such a luxury? Food is not a luxury. It is a basic human right that children should never be hungry, whether at school or at home.
I pay tribute to Feeding Coventry and Coventry food bank, which do a phenomenal job to ensure that all the families in Coventry are not abandoned and are given the food that they need to survive. However, it should not be up to charities such as that; it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that families have the food they need to allow them to be able to make a positive contribution to the society in which we live.
According to Action for Children, over 6,700 children in Coventry live in poverty after housing costs are taken into account. Approximately 2,789 children receive free school meals in my constituency.
We should not be here deciding on whether there should be a vote on this: free school meals should never be something that is put to a vote. It should be something that we work together on across these Benches, saying, “Let us provide opportunity for our constituents, let us give them the ability to achieve their full potential, and let them be able not to worry about food with the issues that are going on.” They are already dealing with covid-19 —they do not need to deal with whether or not they are going to have food. I really do hope that Government Members will sit down, look deep into their hearts, and vote for their constituents to ensure that they are not left behind.

Sam Tarry: It is a great honour to follow such passionate and righteous indignation from my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) in representing their constituents so powerfully.
It should shame all of us in this House that amidst one of the greatest economic and health crises in modern history we are having to vote to force this Government to extend free school meals over the holidays just so that children do not go hungry at Christmas. We may well be living in unprecedented times, but we are still the fifth richest country in the world and are more than capable of supporting the most vulnerable in our society.
We are in the middle of the most severe crisis our nation has faced since it stood and fought for democracy and sovereignty in world war two. There can be no half  measures as our nation pulls together to get us through a dark hour indeed. This country is so sick and tired of asking the Government to do the right thing. Time and again, this Government are showing our nation that they are simply not fit to govern during a time of crisis, nor do they prioritise the interests of ordinary working people.
Before the covid crisis, more than 4,000 children were eligible for free school meals in my constituency. After the pandemic hit, that figure more than doubled, with many now reliant on welfare support just to make ends meet. A fifth of Ilford South’s population are still on furlough, with a significant number forecast to lose their jobs over the next month as a result of the Government’s inadequate job support package. It is shocking—absolutely shocking—that more than 2 million children across our country are living in households that experience food insecurity during this pandemic. With over 1 million children living in areas that are now subject to harsher lockdowns, the number of children that will require this additional support will only increase.
We are failing our children at a time of national crisis. The lack of support provided to socioeconomically disadvantaged children will scar their futures. What we are asking from this Government is neither radical nor impractical. Well-governed nations around the world continue to prove that there is another way. In New Zealand, despite already having lower child poverty rates than the UK, a competent Labour-majority Government have found the means to prioritise free school meals within their covid-19 recovery. If the UK were to match the scale of that commitment made by Jacinda Ardern, it would have to provide almost 3 million students with free school meals. If it is good enough for New Zealand, it is good enough for our great nation as well.
I implore this Government to adopt the calls from the Food Foundation and other civil society organisations to implement three of the recommendations from the national food strategy. The parents of children in Ilford South, who are desperate to get by and to provide for their families, and are defiant in the face of such disregard, are doing their bit to beat this virus, yet their businesses, staff and wage support are slashed while their children go hungry.

Tulip Siddiq: As I stand here once again at the Dispatch Box winding up an Opposition day debate on free school meals, I have a strong sense of déjà vu, because just four months ago I was standing in this exact spot speaking on the exact same topic—extending free school meals over the upcoming holidays. The big difference between now and then is that just hours before the big debate in June, the Prime Minister performed a U-turn. Today, sadly, there has been no U-turn, and 1.4 million children will be without a hot meal from next week during half-term. For some, it is the only nutritious meal they get every day.
We are about to face one of the toughest winters of our generation. With the pandemic, with the flu season upon us and with the furlough scheme coming to an end, parents are twice as likely to be furloughed than anyone else working, and now they have to worry about feeding their children. We should all be hanging our heads in shame. Some 1.5 million people are already unemployed, the Bank of England has predicted that  the employment rate will rise above its previous forecast of 7.5% this year, and food bank use in this country is expected to be 51% higher this winter than last. Almost 1 million of the children who are set to lose their free school meals next week are in areas that are subject to tier 1 and tier 2 restrictions.

Alex Sobel: rose—

Tulip Siddiq: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way; I have a lot to get through.
Before I sum up the important contributions that were made in this debate, I want to thank someone who is not an MP but who probably should be. Marcus Rashford has done us proud. It pains me, as a Liverpool fan, to say that—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) felt the same when we praised him earlier—but we congratulate him on holding the Government to account and on the amazing goal that he scored last night.
I want to pay tribute to two other people who are not in the Chamber today, my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for all the work they have done in championing this issue.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) made passionate speeches about the struggles of the poor children in their constituencies, and I think the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West will go down in history for demonstrating the passion that she feels about representing the poor people in her constituency. We also heard a very passionate and personal story from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) about being on free school meals and how that benefited her. That shows just how important being well fed is for a child. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) also spoke passionately about the struggles in his constituency when it comes to food poverty.
The Government do not think it is worth spending £157 million to ensure that hungry children can get food support in the holidays during a pandemic. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) pointed out, they think it is worth spending £7,000 a day on a consultant for Serco’s failing test and trace system. I do not know whether the House is aware that that fee alone could pay for 2,300 meals for hungry children next week during half term. The amount that we are paying one consultant per day to deliver Serco’s failing test and trace system could pay for 2,300 meals for hungry children. Please let that sink in.
All the other nations of the UK understand this and have now committed to holiday provision. It is only children in England who will not get the support—again, shameful. I pay tribute in particular to the Welsh Government, who have not only guaranteed support through spring next year, but at every stage announced it well in advance, giving families certainty and the right to plan. The result of that strong leadership is that parents in Wales are not having to worry about whether they can put food on the table next year.
I want to share a quote from a parent who shared their experience with the Children’s Society last month. They said, “I tell my kid to make sure they eat all their  school meals, as it may be the only meal they have. I often have nothing to eat and any food I do have I give to my kid, as they only get one meal a day. I don’t have a meal many days.” I would like all the Conservative MPs in the Chamber to think about a child who they know, whether it is their own child, their niece or nephew, a godchild or a friend’s child. How would they feel if that child was going to sleep tonight not having eaten, and knowing that when they wake up tomorrow there is no food in the fridge? Can they imagine that small person having a rumbling stomach when they are going to bed at night? This is what we are voting on today. It is about humanity.
Many people on the Opposition Benches might not agree with me, but I genuinely believe that most MPs came into this House for the right reasons. I believe they came into politics because they wanted to make a difference and because they wanted to protect the most vulnerable. This is a chance to demonstrate why we came into politics. I know it is not easy to rebel against the party. I have rebelled a few times against my own party, and it has never been easy, but this is about principles above party. I know it is not easy to defy the Prime Minister, but I am asking hon. Members from across the House to think carefully about what they are going to say when they go back to their constituencies and there are hungry children because they voted in the wrong Lobby. I know it is a hard thing to do, but once again I am asking Conservative MPs to vote with us tonight.
As the House knows, we are in the middle of Black History Month, so I will conclude by quoting a very famous black person, Nelson Mandela, who once said:
“There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.”
Before Conservative Members vote today, I ask them please to think about what Nelson Mandela said.

Therese Coffey: We
“are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
I think that feeling has come through in many of the speeches tonight made by right hon. and hon. Members. It came through even where there was anger about some of the different policy approaches that could be taken. I think the House is absolutely united in wanting to do the best for vulnerable children.
Social justice has been at the absolute heart of every decision that the Government have taken to help the people of this country get through this pandemic together. Whether it is about trying to do our best to save lives and livelihoods, about devising the shielding scheme where we provided 4.2 million food boxes to people, or about making sure that schools were kept open by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the most vulnerable children in society, those are the approaches that we have taken in trying to make sure that we can get through this pandemic together.
It is a truism that when the Labour party has left government, unemployment has always been higher than when it went into office. That is not the same for  Conservative Governments. The Conservative approach is that the best way out of poverty is through work. What we have also done in the time that we have been in office since 2010 is to make a shift away from the cliff edges that happened under the tax credit system, where people made rational decisions that they would be better off not working than working. We have turned that on its head so that people will be better off in work unless they cannot work.
I am very conscious that in every constituency it is highly likely that we will see unemployment rising in a very difficult and challenging way, particularly for the sectors that we know about such as hospitality and similar, and where we have put much greater national restrictions. Right here, right now, this Conservative Government are standing behind the people and businesses of this country to help them when they need it most. In terms of our schools, I have already pointed out that we had extra support throughout the year, including through holiday activities. In terms of supporting employees, we have had the furlough scheme, which will take us through to the end of October, through half-term. It has cost, and is costing, taxpayers £53 billion to provide that support for families right across the country. There will be a new job support scheme with enhanced measures for those parts of the country where stricter and more radical public health changes need to be made, in order to help to tackle this virus. Amid all that, I am very proud of the people that work in my Department for the support that they have given to vulnerable people across the country, making sure that we have got money to people when they needed it in terms of the welfare state.
In particular, it is important to stress that £9.3 billion is not a small amount of money compared to what was injected into the welfare system when we had the last financial crisis. It is giving families an extra £20 a week, and that takes those families right through to Easter next year. It is important that we try to make sure that we have that targeted support, which is why, in addition to the councils that received £500 million extra earlier in the year, an extra £63 million was specifically given to councils, because our social workers know the families in their areas who are at risk and can get that extra help to them. Of course, with the Barnett formula, all the devolved nations have had extra funding as well.
We are in a situation where the Government have firmly stood behind the most vulnerable children and people in the country, and I am very proud of our Government for doing that.

Zarah Sultana: There are 3,829 children in Coventry South who receive free school meals. Talking to their parents, I know how valuable that provision is—how they depend on it, and how their kids would starve without it. So I ask the Minister and MPs on the Government Benches: “If you vote against the motion, if you let kids go to sleep hungry at night, how do you not feel any sense of shame?”

Therese Coffey: Some of the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends made important speeches. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) spoke in praise of the holiday activities and food in the summer. We share her view on that; it is one of the schemes that we funded. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) was absolutely right in her passionate conviction that we are here to do  what we can to help children in society; and that is what we have been doing—not least by improving children’s educational attainment, to enable them to have a genuine future career.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who have experience as teachers, said that a major part of our approach should be to improve the chances of families. That is why the Government are working together—we are working with my hon. Friends in other Departments—not only on identifying what we can do to help the most challenged families in society, but on tackling the cost of living. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced the extension of the energy price cap, and we shall continue to do more. Nearly a million pensioners are getting £140 off their energy bills later this year without lifting a finger; that is what we are doing to help people.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who was praised by her near neighbour the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, spoke about the benefits of a hot meal in the middle of a school day that helps children learn. Yes, we agree. We have provided that, and extended it to the youngest children automatically. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) is right that we must continue to focus on those children who are in protection plans, and those families who are suffering drug abuse and family breakdown, and we need to keep a focus on making sure that we support the child in the whole.
We are actually in quite a different situation from where we were earlier in the year, when we were in a national lockdown, with a very strong “stay at home” message, and people’s lives were highly restricted. The virus was new; it was scary. We were—and still are—continuing to learn how to handle the situation, but together as a Government we have tried to ensure that we continue to put the vulnerable first. We are in a different situation now. We are not in the same measures of lockdown. More people have come off the furlough scheme and are now back in work—they can work from home or go to work. Schools are open. The NHS is treating many more people, not just the people with coronavirus. So we need to encourage life to continue as it is. That is why we have put those enhanced measures into tier 2 and tier 3. I congratulate the leaders of the councils who have decided to take that offer of support from the Government, to ensure that they can help the people who they represent.
It is really important that we continue to come together as a House to recognise the support that has gone in. That is why we tabled the amendment to today’s motion, recognising that we have undertaken significant ways to help the most vulnerable children in society. I am very keen to ensure that we keep that focus on the most important of our generations for the future, so that people do not fall through the cracks. That is why I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Ministers across Government, including the Prime Minister, say regularly that there will be nobody left behind, and that we will do our best to strive every day to save the lives and livelihoods of people in this country.
We really must consider, genuinely, what should be uniting us today. I am very conscious that Labour Members may think that theirs is the only way to  approach this issue. I say gently to them: recognise the support that has been given to the families that you represent; recognise the £9.3 billion in welfare alone, never mind the furlough income that has been there, and is continuing to help people. So, right here, right now, let the House come together, support the amendment and show a united message to the people of this country that we shall support, and continue to support, the most vulnerable people in our country.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 322.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House notes that schools are now fully operational following the covid-19 outbreak, and will continue to offer free school meals in term time; welcomes the substantial support provided by the Government to children worth £550 million annually; further welcomes that this support has been bolstered by almost £53 billion worth of income protection schemes, and £9.3 billion of additional welfare payments; notes that eligible families have also been supported throughout lockdown through the receipt of meal vouchers worth £380 million while schools were partially closed, alongside the Holiday Activities and Food Fund; and further supports the Government in its ongoing activities to help the most vulnerable children in society.

Rosie Winterton: I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 342 and the Noes were 237, so the Ayes have it.
On the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1031), the Ayes were 353 and the Noes were nil, so the Ayes have it.
On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1045), the Ayes were 333 and the Noes were one, so the Ayes have it.
On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1057), the Ayes were 332 and the Noes were four, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 324 and the Noes were 188, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 2 and 3 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Electronic Communications)

That the draft Communications Act (e-Commerce) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 24 September, be approved.

Education

That the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Student Support) (England) (Coronavirus) (Revocation) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 28 September, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Support for the travel industry

David Linden: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Glasgow East who wish to see support for the travel industry.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic have had a devastating effect on the travel and tourism sector; notes that, normally, outbound and inbound travel is estimated to generate approximately £65bn to the UK economy; further notes that an estimated 12,000 jobs are already lost and approximately a further 75,000 jobs could be at risk; further declares that no more operators should be pushed to bankruptcy; and further declares that any work by the Secretary of State for Transport to support the travel industry should be in coordination with the #SaveTravel Campaign organised by Trade Travel Gazette.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately bring forward additional measures to support the travel industry, including the aviation sector, coach companies and travel booking agencies.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002610]

Petition - Inquiry into policing at the Orgreave coking plant, 18 June 1984

Grahame Morris: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Easington and others from former coalmining communities and beyond about the need for an inquiry into policing at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984.
The petition declares:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Easington,
Declares that the UK Government has a responsibility to investigate properly the behaviour of the police at the Orgreave coking plant miners’ strike on 18 June 1984; further declares that it fails this responsibility with its decision on 31 October 2016 not to order an inquiry into the policing of the strike; further declares that the silence of the UK Government on this issue is irreconcilable with Scotland and Wales, where the Scottish Parliament completed its own review in February 2019 into the policing of the Miners’ Strike in Scotland and the Welsh Assembly continues to call for a review; and further declares that, until a light can be shone on the government participation and police operations during the Miners’ Strike 1984-85, and specifically on 18 June 1984 at Orgreave, this historic injustice will continue to fuel public unrest at the lack of accountability of the state.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and review its decision not to order an independent inquiry into the policing at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984; and to consider afresh the legal submission presented to the Home Secretary by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign in 2015.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002615]

Petition - Support for the wedding industry

Alan Brown: One of the traumatic effects of the covid-19 restrictions has been for people who have planned their weddings. Some have had to cancel their dream wedding; others now have to massively scale them down. Those are emotional impacts, but there is a wider economic impact, which is why I present this petition for support for the wider wedding industry.
Just today, I was contacted by the manager of a hotel; they are really struggling because of the local lockdown restrictions but also cited the loss of wedding trade as one of the impacts. The wedding industry covers hospitality venues, catering suppliers, outfitters, bands, DJs, limousine and taxi-hire companies, coach companies and photographers, and many of those people have not had any support whatsoever.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward immediate additional measures to support the wider wedding industry, including hospitality venues, outfitters, suppliers, the entertainment industry, photographers, vehicle hire companies and coach hire companies.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun,
Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic have had a devastating effect on the wider wedding industry; further declares that this impact is felt across hospitality venues, catering suppliers, outfitters, bands and DJs, limousine and tax hire companies, coach companies, and photographers; further declares  that many of these groups now have no income or support; further declares that these are all viable businesses when restrictions are lifted and full weddings can take place; and further declares that many people have been personally disappointed by the lost opportunity to marry their loved ones in the setting they dreamed of, further that many people hope that they have their maximum choice available post covid-19 pandemic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward immediate additional measures to support the wider wedding industry, including hospitality venues, outfitters, suppliers, the entertainment industry, photographers, vehicle hire companies and coach hire companies.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002616]

Hedge End Train Station: Accessibility

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

Paul Holmes: I rise to raise with the Government an issue that has been a long-standing concern of my constituents living in Hedge End, Botley, West End and Fair Oak, and that is the lack of accessibility at Hedge End train station in my constituency. It is good to see present in the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). I know that they have constituents who use the railway station.
Before I go into detail about the particular circumstances concerning Hedge End, I wish to give the Minister some context in respect of why I have called for action and for this debate in particular. Over the past 20 years, the population of Eastleigh borough has grown by 15%, which is almost double the national average rate. We have also seen significant increases in house building, particularly in Hedge End, which sadly has not been matched with the new infrastructure needed to serve the growing population. The situation has been exacerbated by the failure of the local council, which has been unable or unwilling to put in place a suitable local plan to guide and shape development in a sustainable way.
The volume of new housing in Hedge End has been substantial. Between 2001 and 2011, new homes delivered at Dowd’s Farm, a major strategic development in Hedge End North, increased the population in that borough council ward by 33.6%. That is in 10 years. Between 2011 and now, major new housing developments have delivered a further 450 new homes, with more housing delivered not only as part of Dowd’s Farm but at Kings Copse Road and St John’s Road, near to the southern parish’s excellent Conservative club.
Looking ahead, Eastleigh Borough Council has either granted planning permission or allocated space for a further 738 new homes to be built in Hedge End in the next 10 years. In simple terms, we have had the housing growth and population increases, and we will continue to have more housing growth, but we have not got the infrastructure that should go hand in hand with this level of past, present and planned development.
Members may have been to my constituency to campaign in one or both of the by-elections that have taken place there in the past 25 years—although it is safe to say, I hope, that there will be no further by-elections in my constituency—and if they did, they would have arrived at either Southampton Airport Parkway or Eastleigh town centre. At the next election, during my hopefully successful re-election campaign, I want to give colleagues the opportunity to see Hedge End town’s vibrant offer after coming into a Hedge End train station with greater accessible transport.
Towns and villages such as Hedge End, Botley, Bursledon and Hamble are served by small stations that lack the facilities required to serve growing settlements. Many of my constituents choose to live in Hedge End because of the railway connections to London, the great sense of community and the excellent local schools, such as Wildern School and Berrywood, to name but two. This  explains why Hedge End station is well used, with more than 522,000 entries and exits in the past year alone. That is up from 506,000 in 2017. However, for some people in my constituency entering the station is not as easy as exiting the station and that is what I hope the Minister will be able to assist with today.
Parents with disabled children, disabled adults and parents with pushchairs or prams are unable to use Hedge End station to travel because there are no lifts, wheelchair or pushchair-accessible facilities at the station. Travellers or commuters with mobility issues are left in the unacceptable situation of being able to take the train to London from Hedge End, but they are forced to alight at Southampton Airport, Eastleigh, Fareham or other stations towards Portsmouth for their return journey.

Caroline Nokes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. Does he agree that all too often it is our disabled constituents who get the roughest deal when it comes to public transport, particularly on our rail network, and that we simply have to do better to make sure they have the same access to get around the country as we do?

Paul Holmes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Many constituents have written to me to tell me how they have disabled children or that they have disabilities themselves, and that at the moment they cannot travel into London. The only way, which I will come on to later, they can get to London and have that mobility is by taking a journey in a car or by paying for a cab to go down the M27 and into Eastleigh town centre or Southampton. She is completely correct. Members across the House have stations where this is a problem and we need to get better at providing that solution for people with disabilities, so they can travel as well as those who are able-bodied. That is why I say to the Minister that the situation at Hedge End surely cannot be allowed to continue.
Southampton Airport and Eastleigh, which are the closest stations to Hedge End, are still over five miles away by car or taxi, which naturally come with additional costs and inconvenience. The lack of access to the station means that people from the southern half of my constituency are forced to travel to Southampton Airport Parkway, which has an annual usage of 1.7 million passengers, or Eastleigh, which has an annual usage of 1.6 million passengers, by driving through the towns of Fair Oak, Horton Heath or Bishopstoke, or down the M27. That creates another problem. Our towns and villages, such as Eastleigh, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, are struggling with a lack of investment in road infra- structure caused by the overdevelopment of housing. This means that the roads around Eastleigh and Southampton Airport station are often blocked in rush hour and inaccessible, too. There is a wider point in that the Government quite rightly—I completely support them—argue that we need greener and more sustainable forms of travel. I agree, but the current facilities at Hedge End station do not facilitate that and in many respects actively discourage it. That is, of course, bad for passengers, bad for the environment and bad for our local transport networks.
The Minister will know that levelling up is not just about solving a geographical problem between north and south. It is about equal opportunity and better outcomes for those who are disadvantaged. I firmly believe that with the installation of either a lift or wheelchair accessible facilities at Hedge End station, we can achieve exactly the sort of results that are at the heart of this Government’s agenda.

Flick Drummond: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about a very important topic, which is equally important to the constituencies that neighbour his own. As he said, it is a very fast-growing station—with, I think, 138% growth since 2000—so it is important to my constituents. Has he considered that it is possible to get on the Fareham-bound platform along a footpath, which at the moment is very muddy? Has he looked at whether we can develop that side of the station to enable people with disabilities to access Fareham-bound trains?

Paul Holmes: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She knows the station as well as I do, and her constituents use it. There are options to improve the footbridge from that side of the train station. I share her sentiments and her aspiration, and think that that is an adequate step for the short term, but with the number of people who will use the station in the longer term with the increase in population from those moving into the constituency, we need to go further. That is why I secured the debate tonight and I thank her for her intervention.
With the installation of either a lift or wheelchair-accessible facilities at Hedge End station, we can achieve the sort of results that are at the heart of the Government’s agenda. We can give disabled people the opportunity to easily travel for work and enjoyment, we can make life better for families and parents with young children, we can improve our environment by getting more cars off the road, and we can make sustainable travel alternatives a sensible, viable option for my constituents and the wider community.
With all those benefits, I hope the Minister will reflect on the strong case for upgrading the facilities at Hedge End station and make the station a priority for future funding allocations. I know that he will acknowledge that I have written to him and lobbied him before, in the Tea Room and other locations, and I will continue to lobby him to get the funding we need. However, if he would like to make our life in Eastleigh just a little bit easier, I look forward to him writing to me, or he could just give me and my constituents the good news that he is allocating the funding right now.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) on giving colleagues across the House the opportunity to discuss the important subject of accessibility to the railway network, in particular in his constituency at Hedge End station. I thank him for the very positive engagement that we have had on this matter. I promise him that his polite and persistent manner will achieve a lot for his constituents in this place. The way in which he goes about his business is completely professional and does him great credit.
I recognise how important it is for my hon. Friend’s constituents to have access to the railway to get to and from work, to see family and friends, and to go about their lives. I know from the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) how important it is for their constituents, too. I should also acknowledge my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and for High Peak (Robert Largan), who care passionately about accessibility on the railway and are here to listen to the debate, and my opposite number, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who assiduously attends these debates and who I know is passionate about this area too.
Delivering a transport system that is truly accessible to all is of great importance to the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has seen the Department for Transport’s inclusive transport strategy, published in 2018, and recognises it as evidence of the Government’s commitment to taking action to safeguard and promote the rights of all disabled passengers. We do not deny that our strategy is ambitious, but we are determined to deliver it. By 2030, we want disabled people to have the same access to transport as everyone else. If physical infrastructure remains a barrier, assistance will play a role in guaranteeing those rights.
An accessible transport network is central to the Government’s wider ambition to build a society that works for all. Regardless of the nature of a person’s disability, they should have the same access to transport and the same opportunity to travel as everyone else, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North said. This is an important measure for reducing social isolation and creating opportunities for people to play a more active role in society. We know, for example, that disabled people are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled people. The simple ability to travel from A to B should not be a barrier to someone becoming employed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh knows, many of our stations are Victorian and their infrastructure is not fit for today. The 19th-century stations were not built with the needs of 21st-century passengers in mind, which has left us with a huge task of opening up the rail network to disabled passengers. Although 75% of journeys are through step-free stations, only about a fifth of stations, 20%, have proper step-free access into the station and to and between each platform.
Clearly, there is a lot more to be done. Accessible stations make a huge difference to people’s journey experience, not only for those with reduced mobility but for those carrying heavy luggage, those pushing pushchairs with children and a whole host of other people. That is why we have continued the Access for All programme. The inclusive transport strategy included a commitment to extend the programme across control period 6 in rail, between 2019 and 2024—we love to work in five-year periods—with an additional £300 million of funding from the public purse. My hon. Friend might also be aware that in March the Chancellor included an extra £50 million in the Budget for that programme.

Caroline Nokes: As Chair of the Select Committee on Women and Equalities, I can tell the Minister that the issue of disabled people and transport is a subject dear  to the Committee’s heart. Can he give us some indication of the sums that the Chancellor has extended to the network to improve accessibility at stations and how many that might help?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will come on to that later in my speech and, like my right hon. Friend, I am very passionate about this area. I have done a huge amount, I would like to think, to help people with learning disabilities, and I was the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability in this place before I was fortunate enough to become a Minister.
I know we need to do a great deal more, but I guess I can say to my right hon. Friend that this new funding builds on the previous success. It was launched as a 10-year programme in 2006. So far, it has installed accessible step-free routes at more than 200 stations, and some 1,500 stations have benefited from smaller-scale access improvements.
The new funding allows design work to restart on all the projects deferred by the 2016 Hendy review into Network Rail delivery and allows even more stations to be included in the programme. We asked the industry to nominate stations for the new funding, and we received more than 300 nominations, most of which came through the train operating companies, often in partnership with local authorities, Members of Parliament or local councillors who were championing them.
Nominated stations were then selected based on criteria, which included—this is quite an important inclusion—annual footfall and the incidence of disability in the area. We also took into account other local factors, such as proximity to a hospital or the availability of third-party funding for the project and, indeed, ensured a fair geographic spread of the projects across the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh will know, Hedge End was nominated for Access for All funding, but was not successful this time round. That was largely because of its low footfall compared with other stations nominated by South Western Railway. I understand his disappointment that Hedge End was not selected. All inaccessible stations deserve funding, but as he would understand, we receive many more nominations for the programme than we are able to support at this time. Stations are selected for funding through a prioritisation and assessment process. It was difficult to justify Hedge End’s inclusion at this time ahead of other busier stations that had a higher priority for the reasons I have just given and as suggested by the industry.

Paul Holmes: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, and I am grateful for his comments, but will he just clarify something for me and my constituents? He says that Hedge End was unsuccessful in bidding for funding last time, which I completely accept—his communication with me was perfectly courteous on that—but will future funding bids take into account the historic increase in footfall in stations, which Hedge End will have over the next five years, but also has had over the past five years?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Yes. Footfall is a very important factor in the criteria that we take into account. Should further funding become available, or if there are significant underspends elsewhere in the existing delivery programme, I will look to select further stations. I cannot guarantee  that that will happen, and I cannot yet guarantee that Hedge End will be among them, because unfortunately it is far from unique, but it will be given due consideration along with the other unsuccessful stations, and I can tell my hon. Friend that I will bear in mind this debate at that time, along with all the very valid arguments he has made this evening.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to improving access across the rail network, and we will seek further opportunities and funding to make further improvements. We are also pressing the industry to comply with its legal obligations to ensure that work at stations meets current accessibility standards and for the Office of Rail and Road to enforce the standards effectively. That applies not only to the flagship projects, such as Crossrail or the redevelopment of Birmingham New Street—all of which are delivering significant accessibility improvements—but also as part of the business-as-usual work of the renewals programme, such as making sure that any replacement bridges have lifts or ramps.
It is also important that the industry meets its obligations to anyone who needs assistance, whether or not they have booked ahead of time. Every passenger should get the best possible help to use the trains, particularly at stations that do not have accessibility features. Each operator is required to have an accessible travel policy in place as part of its licence to operate services. The policy sets out the services that disabled passengers can expect and what to do if things go wrong. It commits the operator to meeting its legal obligations by making reasonable adjustments to its services to allow disabled people to use them, for example by providing an accessible taxi free of charge to anyone unable to access a particular station.
The Office of Rail and Road recently consulted on revised accessible travel policy guidance, which included new proposals that will strengthen the provisions put in place to ensure that disabled people can use the rail network. I have encouraged the ORR to take enforcement action against train and station operators who are found not to be meeting their accessibility obligations.
Every disabled passenger should be confident that the assistance they have booked will be provided. The Department has worked with the Rail Delivery Group   to create the new passenger assistance application, which will make it easier for disabled passengers to book assistance. We encourage the ORR to be as ambitious as possible with regard to the proposals to reduce the minimum notice period for booking assistance, and to set the shortest minimum period that operational constraints allow, based on its knowledge of and input of its routes.
I know that there is more we can do to make the rail network more accessible. Therefore, we will be introducing a new set of accessibility requirements. Those include the introduction and delivery of enhanced disability awareness training to all train operating company staff, regardless of their role or seniority, and mandating all train operators running new franchises, or these new emergency recovery measures agreements, to write annually to the Secretary of State for Transport and me, as the transport accessibility Minister, outlining all activity that has been conducted to improve accessibility for rail passengers, including what they have done beyond the obligations in their franchise agreements and future rail contracts. We have actively supported the establishment by the industry of an independent rail ombudsman with powers to deal with unresolved passenger complaints. However, as I say, there is a lot more to be done in this area, and not all of it involves more cash.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government are committed to improving access at stations for disabled passengers, through both specific projects such as Access for All and improvements delivered as part of our wider commitment to improving the rail network. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and all colleagues for their contributions to the debate. I appreciate the frustration of passengers who do not have access to stations in their area, but I hope that my hon. Friend has been reassured that the Government remain committed to investment that will provide and improve services in this area. We want all people to continue to benefit from the record levels of funding, including Access for All investment, that we are putting into the rail network at this point in time, and I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for raising this issue in the manner in which he did.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Sammy Wilson


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow)
  Chris Elmore


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Dawn Butler


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Jeremy Hunt


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Bim Afolami


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Craig Mackinlay


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Steve Baker


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Fay Jones


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Kate Osborne


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Lloyd Russell-Moyle


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stewart Malcom McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Kate Osborne


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Patrick Grady


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Osamor (Jarrow)
  Nadia Whittome


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Robert Courts


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Dawn Butler


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore

Deferred Divisions

Exiting the European Union (Immigration)

That the draft Citizens' Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 21 September, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 237.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Insolvency

That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1031), dated 23 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 September, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 353, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1045), dated 27 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 September, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 1.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1057), dated 30 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 September, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 4.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Community Infrastructure Levy

That the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 28 September, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 188.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.